$
5
JO
\.

W-
PRO^
Lit
CD
T
¦/
DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE INDIANA
HARBOR AND CANAL MAINTENANCE
DREDGING AND DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Contract No. 68D90130
Delivery Order No. 6
March 1993
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590
Prepared by
IHH Halliburton NUS
"" CORPORATION

-------







.







-------

-------
INDIANA HARBOR AND CANAL DRAFT SUPPLEMENT
SUMMARY
This Supplement to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for Maintenance Dredging and Disposal Activities in the
Indiana Harbor and Canal (IHC) in Lake County, Indiana was prepared for the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region V.
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS
The USACE is in the process of completing its DEIS for Maintenance Dredging and
Disposal Activities for the Federal navigation channel in the IHC. This Supplement
to the DEIS addresses the remediation dredging and disposal of sediments which
lie outside of the Federal navigation channel in the Grand Calumet River (GCR) and
the IHC, and the associated impacts of the dredging and disposal.
The USEPA and the Chicago District of the USACE have in recent years performed
numerous physical and chemical tests on sediments in the IHC. Based on these
tests results, the USEPA has classified portions of the sediments as moderately
polluted, heavily polluted, and toxic. These designations indicate the sediments
are not suitable for open water disposal. The DEIS discusses the need for and
impacts of maintenance dredging of the Federal navigation channel and disposal of
these sediments. This Supplement discusses remediation dredging in the IHC/GCR
outside the scope of the USACE DEIS.
The proposed plan would include the USACE dredging of the present sediment
backlog and maintenance of the authorized channel depths, and the USEPA-
required remediation dredging of sediments in the IHC/GCR outside the Federal
i

-------
navigation channel. The proposed plan would also allow for construction and
maintenance of at least one confined disposal facility (CDF) for the sediments to be
dredged, including sediments regulated under the Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA).
The environmental impacts of the proposed dredging and disposal would generally
be beneficial. The dredging and disposal activities would negatively impact area
water quality and aquatic organisms during dredging operations. However, these
short-term negative impacts would diminish rapidly and result in the long-term
positive benefit of decreased sediment contamination available to the water
system.
COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
The alternative plans for dredging, treatment, and disposal of the sediments
outside the Federal navigation channel are the same as those discussed in the
DEIS. These plans are in full compliance with all applicable state and Federal
regulations.
A portion of the sediments in the area contain levels of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) exceeding 50 parts per milliion (ppm), thereby making their treatment and
disposal subject to USEPA regulation pursuant to TSCA. The recommended plan in
the DEIS provides for the disposal of these sediments in accordance with TSCA
requirements.
ii

-------
INDIANA HARBOR AND CANAL DRAFT SUPPLEMENT
Table Of Contents
SUMMARY	 	i
TABLE OF CONTENTS	iii
LIST OF TABLES	v
LIST OF FIGURES 	vi
1.	INTRODUCTION 	 1
1.1	Purpose of the Action	 1
1.2	Need for the Action 	 1
1.3	Regulatory Issues	 3
1.4	Background	 5
2.	DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES 	17
2.1	Policy Alternatives 	17
2.1.1	No Action Alternative	17
2.1.2	USACE Dredging of the Federal Navigation Channel	18
2.1.3	USEPA-Required Dredging for Remediation Outside the
Federal Navigation Channel	18
2.1.4	Combined USACE and USEPA-Required Dredging	18
2.2	Technology Alternatives 	19
2.2.1	Dredging Alternatives	19
2.2.2	Treatment Alternatives		23
2.2.3	Disposal Alternatives	26
2.2.4	Sediment Isolation Alternatives 		29
3.	AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT	31
3.1	Sediment Quality 	31
3.2	Water Quality	44
iii

-------
3.3	Biological Resources	48
3.3.1	Aquatic Habitats	48
3.3.2	Terrestrial Habitats	49
3.3.3	Wetlands	50
3.3.4	Threatened and Endangered Species	51
3.4	Other Significant Resources	 52
4.	ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 	55
4.1	Impacts of Sediment Management Policy Alternatives	55
4.1.1	Impacts of No Action Alternative	55
4.1.2	Impacts of USACE Dredging of the Federal Navigation Channel
Only (No USEPA Activities)	58
4.1.3	Impacts of USEPA-Required Dredging for Remediation Outside
the Federal Navigation Channel Only (No USACE Activities) 61
4.1.4	Impacts of Combined USACE and USEPA-Required Dredging 64
4.2	Impacts of Sediment Management Technology Alternatives	66
4.2.1	Impacts of Dredging Alternatives	66
4.2.2	Impacts of Treatment Alternatives	68
4.2.3	Impacts of Disposal Alternatives 	68
4.2.4	Impacts of Sediment Isolation Alternatives 	71
4.3	Cumulative Impacts of Sediment Management Alternatives 	71
5.	MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . 75
REFERENCES 	77
LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 	81
LIST OF PREPARERS	83
iv

-------
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Sediment Quality of Indiana Harbor and Canal Sediments Based on
USEPA Studies in 1977 and USACE in 1979
Table 3.2 Chemical Characteristics of Sediment Collected Along Transect E in
the Indiana Harbor Canal and Indiana Harbor
Table 3.3 Concentrations of Pollutants in Sediment Collected from the Indiana
Harbor, Indiana Harbor Canal, Lake George Branch of the Indiana
Harbor Canal, and from the Calumet Branch of the Indiana Harbor
Canal (arranged upstream to downstream, 1 - 5, respectively)
Table 3.4 Summary of General Sediment Quality Characteristics of the Grand
Calumet River
Table 3.5 Water Quality Characteristics of the Indiana Harbor and Canal Based
on Studies Conducted by USEPA in 1981 and Polls and Dennison in
1984
Table 4.1 Impacts of USEPA Initiatives for the Northwest Indiana Region
Table 5.1 Potential Mitigation Measures for Groundwater, Sediment, and Water
Quality, and Biological Resources
v

-------
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor and Canal
Figure 2.1 Locations of the Confined Disposal Facilities Proposed in the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 3.1 Sediment Sample Locations in the Indiana Harbor Canal, Indiana
Harbor, and Lake Michigan
Figure 3.2 Sediment Sample Locations in the Indiana Harbor, the Indiana Harbor
Canal, the Lake George Branch of the Indiana Harbor Canal, and the
Calumet Branch of the Indiana Harbor Canal
vi

-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The following chapter outlines the purpose and need for this Supplement to the
USACE DEIS for the Indiana Harbor and Canal (IHC), discusses the relevant
regulatory issues, and includes a background discussion for the project. The
project background section centers on the Remedial Action Plan for the IHC, Grand
Calumet River (GCR) and the Nearshore Lake Michigan as the major focal point for
the remediation of the area.
1.1	Purpose of the Action
In the summer of 1990, USACE requested that USEPA Region V consider
becoming a cooperating agency on the USACE DEIS for the IHC. The USEPA
Region V views this as an opportunity to address additional environmental
contamination problems in the project area. Currently, USEPA has several ongoing
actions in the area as described in Section 1.1, Background. These include
enforcement activities requiring remediation of contaminated sediments, as well as
other initiatives in the area. In October 1991, representatives of the Chicago
District of USACE and USEPA Region V signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) outlining each agency's responsibilities and rights. Pursuant to the MOU,
USEPA is responsible for preparing this Supplement to address the impacts upon
the USACE project from USEPA-required remediation and other USEPA initiatives
beyond USACE authority in the IHC/GCR.
1.2	Need for the Action
For 100 years, the area surrounding the IHC/GCR (Figure 1.1) has been heavily
industrialized (USEPA and IDEM, 1992). Numerous steel, petroleum, and other
manufacturing facilities have bordered the IHC/GCR water system throughout this
1

-------
Lake Michigan

FIGURE 1.1
The Grand Calumet River
and Indiana Harbor and Canal

-------
NmJl "to vfldMM
MC' $-
HftP-

l0^ ^
\l /•'f*^'
f*P$X
/)
£

i)t'

-------
period. This industrialization has resulted in the significant degradation of the local
environment, including southern Lake Michigan. In support of the RAP for the
IHC/GCR, the USEPA Region V initiated a policy in 1990 to accelerate measurable
environmental improvement in northwest Indiana in support of and by providing
assistance to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).
The most significant environmental concern identified in the IHC/GCR RAP was
sediment contamination in the Federal navigation channel and other segments of
the IHC/GCR (IDEM, 1991). The USEPA is providing assistance to USACE to
expedite the dredging of the Federal navigation channel in the IHC. This dredging
effort will decrease the annual movement of 150,000 cubic yards of contaminated
material from the IHC to Lake Michigan. Additional sediment remediation sought
by the USEPA upstream from the IHC would increase long-term sediment and
water quality throughout the IHC/GCR, prevent additional contaminated sediments
from filling the IHC, and prolong the useful life of the navigation channel. A
coordinated dredging effort, involving USACE and USEPA and including both IHC
and GCR dredging, would therefore be most beneficial to all involved parties.
1.3 Regulatory Issues
The following is a brief discussion of the Federal regulations applicable to activities
in the IHC/GCR and how these regulations apply. The USEPA will comply with all
Federal statutes and adhere to the policies and procedures set forth in them.
The maintenance of the Federal Channel was authorized by the River and Harbors
Act of 1910, which allows for maintenance dredging and disposal of dredge spoils,
and stipulates that the costs of such actions be a Federal expense. Several more
recent Federal regulations, however, supersede the River and Harbors Act, because
the sediments in the IHC have been deemed toxic or hazardous.
3

-------
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 requires the USEPA to test
chemical substances and mixtures to determine if they constitute an unreasonable
risk to health or the environment. If the USEPA determines that a substance or
mixture is toxic, then the USEPA can regulate the manufacture, use, labeling, and
disposal of those substances or mixtures. The TSCA also regulates the use and
disposal of PCBs, including the PCB contaminated sediments found in the IHC.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 was enacted to
protect groundwater, surface water, air, and the land from the contamination by
solid waste disposal. The RCRA defined hazardous waste as either characteristic
waste or listed waste. Characteristic waste is hazardous because it has properties
or characteristics that make it hazardous. Listed waste is waste that has been
determined to be hazardous and has been listed by the USEPA as hazardous.
Under RCRA, sediments in the IHC are considered both characteristic and listed
hazardous wastes and are regulated as such. The RCRA requires facilities that
generate or treat a large amount of hazardous waste to obtain a large quantity
generator or large quantity treatment permit. Before any action resulting in the
treatment or disposal of any large quantity of IHC sediments, a large quantity
treatment permit must be obtained by the Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) operator
pursuant to RCRA.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 are amendments to
RCRA that further define hazardous waste regulations. These amendments
emphasized the concept of waste minimization, prohibited land disposal of
untreated hazardous wastes, and mandated new technologies for dealing with
hazardous waste disposal (e.g., double liners for landfills). The HSWA requires
that sediments from the IHC be treated before being placed in a landfill. The
amendment also provides design criteria guidance for CDFs.
4

-------
T \J kaX \
°Kiij Sortie J
°fU X-tiCf GC&-
q KoAact^' 5"*^"' ^

-------
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilities Act
(CERCLA) of 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986 provide for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency
response in connection with the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal
sites. The CERCLA also established a fund (Superfund) to finance the cleanup of
those hazardous waste sites where a responsible party cannot be determined. The
Act also set up a National Priorities List (NPL) which ranks sites in order from most
critical to least critical. There are several NPL sites in the vicinity of the IHC/GCR.
Under CERCLA, responsible parties for any NPL sites in the area would potentially
be responsible for paying part of the cleanup cost of the IHC if it can be
determined that the IHC has been contaminated from the activities at an NPL site.
Also pursuant to CERCLA, location of the CDF would not be permitted on any area
that is an NPL site.
1.4 Background
The Remedial Action Plan for the Indiana Harbor Canal, the Grand Calumet River
and the Nearshore Lake Michigan
In 1985, the International Joint Commission (IJC), an organization established by
the US and Canada to protect the Great Lakes, designated the northwest Indiana
region as one of 42 "areas of concern" around the Great Lakes (IDEM, 1991).
This designation resulted from the area's inability to meet the objectives of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the US and Canada. The
designation requires that the US government cooperate with the State of Indiana to
identify the scope of environmental problems and methods to address them
(USEPA and IDEM, 1992). The State of Indiana must submit a 3-stage Remedial
Action Plan (RAP) for the area. Stage 1 of the RAP defines the specific
environmental problems of the area. Stage 2 identifies remedial and regulatory
5

-------
measures to address these problems. Stage 3 will identify when beneficial uses of
the area have been restored.
In January 1991, the IDEM submitted the Stage 1 RAP to the IJC. Extensive
environmental problems were identified in the IHC/GCR area. The most significant
environmental concern was identified as the in-piace, polluted sediments and the
high rate of sediment transport to Lake Michigan from the IHC/GCR waterway.
Another concern identified in the RAP is the large number of waste sites requiring
remediation, including five Superfund sites. Groundwater contamination in the
harbor area is also an issue, because the high water table allows groundwater
contamination to reach the surface of the river, harbor, and Lake Michigan. Finally,
wastewater discharges in the IHC/GCR have also degraded the quality of the water
systems. Each of these problems has seriously degraded the aquatic communities,
especially the fish populations, in the local water systems.
Current and future activities for the program include revision and preparation of the
RAP. The State of Indiana, with USEPA assistance, will revise the Stage I RAP in
response to IJC comments. The IDEM is updating the Stage 1 RAP by
incorporating data from enforcement actions, studies, and investigations that are
part of the remediation effort. Preparation of the Stage 2 RAP, which identifies
remedial and regulatory measures for the area, is underway. As an interim activity,
the USEPA and IDEM have developed the Northwest Indiana Action Plan (NIAP)
(USEPA and IDEM, 1992). The NIAP includes various initiatives the USEPA is
undertaking in the area in support of the RAP. These activities have been planned
and, to varying degrees, implemented to increase the quality of the environment in
the area.
6

-------
The Northwest Indiana Action Plan
In 1990, USEPA Region V initiated a special, multi-year program to accelerate
measurable environmental improvement in northwest Indiana. The USEPA's
purpose is to support the State of Indiana's commitment to the environment of
northwest Indiana, and to assist the state in developing the RAP for IHC, GCR and
the Nearshore Lake Michigan. The NIAP was developed to provide a framework
for this Federal and state partnership.
The action plan is based on four principles (USEPA and IDEM, 1992). The first
principle is that success is to be measured as tangible environmental improvement.
The second principle is that creative solutions and non-traditional ways of dealing
with environmental problems are to be explored. The third principle is to use an
integrated multimedia approach, focused on common objectives. Finally, close
coordination between Federal, state, and local governments, and interested
community groups, environmental organizations, citizens, businesses, and industry
is necessary.
The NIAP identifies six environmental objectives that directly support the RAP
efforts for northwest Indiana. The plan includes descriptions of specific programs
to reach these objectives. The objectives and the programs as detailed in the plan
are summarized as follows (USEPA and IDEM, 1992):
OBJECTIVE #1. Ensure the dredging and sediment remediation of the Federal
navigation channel and, where possible, other segments of the
Grand Calumet River, utilizing all available mechanisms.
including enforcement.
The RAP identified contaminated sediments in the IHC/GCR as the most significant
environmental issue in the area of concern. The USEPA is providing extensive
7

-------
assistance to USACE to expedite the dredging of over 1.2 million cubic yards of
material from the Federal navigation channel in the IHC. This effort is critical
because it will decrease the annual movement of 150,000 cubic yards of
contaminated material from the IHC to Lake Michigan. Additional sediment
remediation upstream of the IHC would prolong the useful life of the navigation
channel and would prevent other contaminated sediments from filling the harbor.
State involvement will be crucial to the success of any dredging effort because of
the state's authority to implement regulations for solid and hazardous waste
disposal. These regulations will determine how the sediment would be disposed of
once it is removed from the harbor, canal, and river.
OBJECTIVE #2. Achieve a high level of compliance with all Federal and state
environmental statutes and ensure that the necessary state and
local infrastructure is in place to maintain high levels of
compliance.
Facilities in northwest Indiana have a historically poor record of compliance with
environmental statutes. Monitoring and ensuring compliance with existing
regulations is a primary objective for the area. The USEPA is currently litigating for
reimbursement of remediation costs from public and private parties in the area.
OBJECTIVE #3. Investigate and remediate the millions of gallons of petroleum
distillate in the groundwater of northwest Indiana through
Federal, state, and local efforts.
The problem of groundwater contamination caused by industrial leaks and spills in
northwest Indiana was identified in the RAP. The USEPA estimates that between
5 and 50 million gallons of petroleum distillate exists in the underlying aquifer. The
petroleum distillate poses a threat to the river and Lake Michigan through
8

-------
0^
0-'


-------
continued, slow, and constant seepage to surface water. Remedies will primarily
be carried out by enforcement of state statutes.
OBJECTIVE #4. Beoin a broad-spectrum pollution prevention initiative with local
industries and municipalities to reduce ongoing discharges to
the environment, protect ongoing and completed cleanups, and
ultimately reduce the need for enforcement actions in the Area
of Concern.
Pollution prevention is rapidly becoming an integral part of USEPA and IDEM
programs. Pollution prevention is a key strategy for protecting the considerable
investment of time, effort, and resources committed to the remediation of the
northwest Indiana area of concern.
OBJECTIVE #5. Ensure compliance with Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement through the state's development of the
Remedial Action Plan and the development of the Lakewide
Management Plan for Lake Michigan.
Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1987 required the
preparation of the RAP by IDEM and the Lake Michigan Lakewide Management
Plan (LaMP) by the USEPA.
OBJECTIVE #6. Implement a public outreach and participation effort as part of
an environmental communication strategy to involve the public
in the decision-makino process.
A public involvement plan for northwest Indiana has been developed based on
interviews with community leaders, industry representatives, citizens at large, and
USEPA and state staff. The plan summarizes public concerns about environmental
9

-------
problems in the area and recommends specific public involvement objectives and
activities to address those concerns.
The Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan
The LaMP is designed to reduce loading of toxic pollutants to Lake Michigan
(USEPA and IDEM, 1992). The LaMP objective is to assess the environmental
impact of current loading and identify how future loading can be reduced.
There are five ecosystem objectives and LaMP goals for Lake Michigan (USEPA,
1992). The first goal is that the Lake should support "healthy, diverse,
reproducing, and self-sustaining" aquatic communities that emphasize native
species. Secondly, the waters, coastal wetlands, and upland habitats of the Lake
basin should support in sufficient quality and quantity a healthy, diverse, and self-
sustaining wildlife community. The third goal provides that human activity should
not decrease the quality of the waters and biota of the Lake to levels that affect
human health or aesthetics. The fourth goal is that the Lake and nearshore zones
should be of sufficient quality and quantity to support ecosystem health,
productivity and animal and plant distribution in and adjacent to the Lake. The
fifth goal is that human activities should be environmentally ethical and committed
to responsible stewardship.
The LaMP process for Lake Michigan is divided into six basic steps (USEPA, 1992).
The first step is to monitor the ecosystem and review available information to
determine ecosystem impairments and the impairing pollutants, where possible.
The next step is to identify the sources of the pollutants. Third, the amounts of
pollutants being released, by source, to the Lake are to be quantified. Fourth, load
reduction targets or the degree to which loads need to decrease to prevent impacts
to the Lake are to then be established. The fifth step is to develop and implement
strategies to reduce pollutants existing in the Lake. Finally, the ecosystem is to be
10

-------
reevaluated to measure restoration progress toward beneficial uses and functions
and to detect emerging problems {USEPA, 1992).
Geographic Enforcement Initiative
This initiative is the USEPA mandate to enforce remediation in the area. Since
February 1990, USEPA Region V has maintained a Geographic Enforcement
Initiative (GEI) focused on northwest Indiana, the first of its kind in the nation.
Many enforcement activities have been implemented to achieve compliance with all
Federal and state environmental statutes and to ensure that the necessary state
and local infrastructure is in place to maintain high levels of compliance.
A GEI task force coordinates enforcement actions throughout northwest Indiana.
The task force works to develop multimedia enforcement cases and functions as a
clearinghouse for enforcement activities. There are numerous cases currently in
progress including Inland Steel, Federated Metals Corporation, and Bethlehem
Steel.
Numerous consent decrees for the remediation and prevention of environmental
problems in the area have also been implemented to ensure that regulatory
compliance and desired environmental improvements are attained. The USEPA is
implementing the USX Consent Decree (US v. USX Gary Works), under which USX
will characterize the sediment quality for 13 miles of the GCR, prepare a
comprehensive plan for remediating sediments degraded by its facilities, and carry
out $25 million in physical plant environmental improvements. The USEPA is
finalizing the LTV Steel Company's Indiana Harbor Works Federal Consent Decree
and providing technical support to IDEM in its current civil action against LTV
Steel. The USEPA is also implementing the Gary Sanitary District (GSD) Consent
Decree (US and the State of Indiana v. GSD). In addition to levying a $1.2 million
penalty against the GSD, the decree establishes broad powers for the Mayor to
11

-------
/44r tu / s
G £~ H
" ^

-------
guarantee that GSD completes needed repairs and upgrades to comply with Federal
and state laws. The decree requires GSD to carry out $1.7 million in sediment
remediation work required to complement the work done by USX in the Grand
Calumet water system. The implementation of the TSCA portion of the GSD
Consent Decree is also continuing.
The USEPA and IDEM will continue to determine sediment management
alternatives for the IHC. The IDEM, with USEPA assistance, will implement the
agreement to close the Energy Cooperative, Incorporated (ECI) site (one of four
sites currently being considered for the location of a CDF for dredged sediments).
The USEPA will continue evaluating sediment characterization studies and
reviewing any associated permits for the disposal of the material.
The USEPA will continue developing ways to improve the overall performance of
the Gary, Hammond, and East Chicago Sanitary Districts. Enhanced technical
assistance and pollution prevention programs are in progress for this purpose.
Enforcement actions by USEPA, state, and local authorities against industrial
sources that violate pretreatment limits established for sanitary districts are being
executed. Enforcement actions are being taken against violators of the municipal
contract requirements for the Gary and Hammond Sanitary Districts.
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Initiative
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act authorized USEPA Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) to coordinate and conduct a 5-year study and
demonstration project relating to the appropriate treatment of toxic pollutants in
bottom sediments. The GCR was one of five areas specified in the Act as
requiring priority consideration in conducting demonstration projects. To fulfill the
requirements of the Act, GLNPO initiated the Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program. In addition, the Great Lakes Critical
12

-------
ajOA-Sf H$D

-------
Programs Act of 1990 extended the program by one year and specified completion
dates for certain interim activities.
ARCS is an integrated program for the development and testing of assessment and
remedial action alternatives for contaminated sediments. Information from ARCS
program activities will be used to guide the development of the RAP and the LaMP.
The ARCS Program is a multi-organizational endeavor. Administered by GLNPO,
other participants in ARCS include the USACE, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US
Department of Interior, USEPA headquarters offices, USEPA laboratories, USEPA
Regions II, III and V, and numerous Great Lakes state agencies, universities, and
public interest groups.
Three technical Work Groups identify and prioritize specific tasks to meet the
objectives of the program. These are the Toxicity/Chemistry, Risk Assessment/
Modeling, and Engineering/Technology Work Groups. A fourth Work Group,
Communication/Liaison, oversees technology transfer, public information, and
public participation activities. Finally, the Activities Integration Committee
coordinates the technical aspects of the Work Groups' activities.
The ARCS program has three overall objectives. The first objective is to assess the
nature and extent of bottom sediment contamination. The second objective is to
demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of selected remedial options, including
removal, immobilization, and advanced treatment technologies, as well as the "no
action" alternative. The third objective of ARCS is to provide guidance on
contaminated sediment problems and remedial alternatives. It is emphasized that
ARCS is not a cleanup program.
13

-------
Air Program Initiatives
The USEPA Region V Air and Radiation Division has a number of activities in the
Northwest Indiana area. Many of these activities involve helping the State of
Indiana respond to the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The USEPA and IDEM
are examining a more active and effective enforcement program for the area
including a number of new industrial regulations and enforcement activities. There
are also number of non-regulatory activities that influence northwest Indiana.
Some of these activities are aimed at decreasing automobile emissions by
increasing public awareness and use of mass transit. Additionally, programs have
been initiated for the reduction of organics volatilization from automobile refueling
and repair.
Pollution Prevention Initiative
This is broad-spectrum program in which local industries and municipalities work to
reduce ongoing discharges to the environment, protect ongoing and completed
cleanups, and ultimately reduce the need for enforcement actions in the area.
Pollution prevention is rapidly becoming an integral part of USEPA programs.
Pollution prevention is a key strategy for protecting the considerable investment of
time, effort, and resources committed to the remediation of the area (USEPA and
IDEM, 1992).
Several Federal and state pollution prevention projects began in 1991 and 1992
(USEPA and IDEM, 1992). In September 1992, a Pollution Prevention Symposium
for the iron and steel industry in the Great Lakes Basin provided a forum for
information exchange and education on technical and policy issues related to
pollution prevention. Pollution prevention training was held in spring 1992 for staff
and citizens involved in developing the IHC/GCR RAP. Many voluntary waste
minimization projects sponsored by USEPA's Office of RCRA are underway. In
14

-------
1991, two northwest Indiana corporations agreed to participate in the project. The
USEPA's RCRA Waste Minimization staff and contractors will continue to work
with managers and staff from both facilities to complete waste minimization
audits, with the goal of achieving measurable reductions of hazardous waste
generation at each facility. Development of a pollution prevention strategy
specifically for the steel industry in northwest Indiana is in progress.
The USEPA and IDEM identified specific pollution prevention activities for 1992
(USEPA and IDEM, 1992). The agencies are targeting additional northwest Indiana
industries for voluntary waste minimization projects. Another activity is the urban
Clean Sweep program that educates citizens on safe substitutes for household
hazardous waste. The agencies are also working with northwest Indiana
industries, municipalities, and environmental groups to establish a toxics use
reduction task force. This task force is working to reduce the introduction of
toxics into local sewage treatment plants by identifying and reducing sources.
Additionally, the agencies are identifying pollution prevention opportunities to be
undertaken in coordination with the pollution prevention strategy currently being
developed for the Lake Michigan Basin.
The 33/50 Initiative
This initiative refers to the Toxic Reduction Project. Seventeen chemicals are
targeted by USEPA for voluntary industrial use reduction or elimination. Goals of
33 percent reductions by 1995 and 50 percent reductions by 1998 of the use of
these compounds have been set by USEPA.
An active program under this initiative is the completion of Phase 2 of the Lake
Michigan Toxic Reduction Project. This effort will estimate toxic loading from
Superfund and RCRA sites to Lake Michigan. The estimates will serve as a basis
15

-------
for prioritizing remediation sites in the Lake Michigan basin (USEPA and IDEM,
1992).
Public and Private Partnerships Initiative
This initiative refers to the USEPA program of providing matching funds to local
municipalities, local governments, and business communities for particular
environmental projects. This initiative is part of a public outreach and participation
strategy to involve the public in the decision-making process. This program is to
include local governments, environmental groups, and industry (USEPA and IDEM,
1992).
A public involvement plan for northwest Indiana has been developed based on
interviews with community leaders, industry representatives, citizens at large, and
USEPA and state staff. The plan summarizes public concerns about environmental
problems in the area and recommends specific public involvement objectives and
activities to address those concerns. Implementation of the plan will be carried out
by USEPA's Office of Public Affairs, IDEM's Office of External Affairs, and IDEM's
Northwest Office.
16

-------
2. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
This chapter briefly discusses policy and technology alternatives for sediment
management in the areas within and outside the Federal navigation channel. Policy
alternatives considered include No Action; dredging, by USACE, of the Federal
navigation channel only; dredging outside the Federal navigation channel only, as
required by USEPA enforcement activities; and dredging both within and outside
the Federal navigation channel. Technology alternatives considered include
dredging, treatment, disposal, and isolation.
2.1	Policy Alternatives
This section briefly discusses the four Federal policy alternatives. The No Action
Alternative is discussed in terms of current conditions and operations in the
IHC/GCR. Alternatives for dredging the Federal navigation channel (USACE
activities only), and dredging the IHC/GCR and GCR outside the channel (USEPA-
required activities only) are discussed as separate and distinct actions. A
combination of USACE and USEPA-required dredging outside the channel is also
discussed as an alternative.
2.1.1	No Action Alternative
Under this alternative, dredging of the areas both outside the Federal navigation
channel and dredging of the Federal navigation channel would not take place.
Sediments in both areas would be allowed to remain in place, and contaminants in
the sediments would not be removed. Additionally, authorized depths in the
Federal navigation channel, the breakwaters, and other navigation structures would
not be maintained.
17

-------
2.1.2	USACE Dredging of the Federal Navigation Channel
The alternative for dredging the Federal navigation channel is described in detail in
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Maintenance Dredging and Disposal
Activities for the Indiana Harbor and Canal, Lake County, Indiana (USACE, 1990).
This alternative includes maintenance dredging and construction of a CDF for the
backlog of accumulated sediments in the Federal navigation project at IHC. This
alternative consists of: (1) construction of a CDF in the vicinity of the IHC/GCR; (2)
maintenance dredging of the Federal navigation channel to authorized depths; (3)
treatment and/or disposal of the dredged sediments in the CDF; and (4) routine
maintenance of all navigation structures. This alternative does not include the
dredging of contaminated sediments outside the Federal navigation channel.
2.1.3	USEPA-Required Dredging for Remediation Outside the Federal
Navigation Channel
The alternative for dredging the area outside the Federal navigation channel
includes: (1) construction of a CDF in the vicinity of the IHC/GCR; (2) dredging of
the contaminated sediments outside the Federal navigation channel; and (3)
treatment and/or disposal of the dredged sediments in the CDF. This alternative
does not include the dredging the Federal navigation channel.
2.1.4	Combined USACE and USEPA-Required Dredging
The alternative for dredging the sediments both outside and within the Federal
navigation channel includes a combination of both Sections 2.1.1.2 and 2.1.1.3
above. This alternative consists of: (1) construction of two or more CDFs in
northwest Indiana; (2) maintenance dredging of the Federal navigation channel to
authorized depths; (3) dredging of the contaminated sediments outside the Federal
18

-------
navigation channel; (4) treatment and/or disposal of the dredged sediments in the
CDFs; and (5) routine maintenance of all navigation structures.
2.2	Technology Alternatives
This section briefly discusses the applicable technologies for sediment management
within the IHC/GCR as outlined by USACE (1990). Dredging technologies,
including mechanical and hydraulic dredging alternatives, are generally discussed in
terms of feasibility and effectiveness. Treatment technologies, including
solidification and stabilization, solvent extraction, incineration, and wet air
oxidation, are generally discussed in terms of effectiveness and feasibility based on
the quality of sediments found in the harbor and canal system. Disposal
alternatives are discussed in conjunction with dredging and treatment alternatives.
This section also provides a brief overview of sediment isolation alternatives.
It must be noted that dredging, treatment, and disposal alternatives are each best
used under specific circumstances and that no one alternative is the most effective
or efficient in all cases. A combination of alternatives is often the most
environmentally and economically feasible solution. Similarly, dredging and
treatment alternatives are often complimentary and these synergies should be
explored in the decision-making process.
2.2.1	Dredging Alternatives
Dredging may be performed using a variety of equipment. There are two basic
types of dredging: mechanical and hydraulic. Mechanical dredging physically
removes sediments by using a large bucket or shovel. Hydraulic dredging removes
sediments in a water slurry. In addition, there are several special purpose dredges
for specific applications. This section includes brief descriptions of the potential
19

-------
dredging technologies that may be used outside the Federal navigation channel of
the IHC and in the GCR.
Mechanical Dredging
Mechanical dredging is accomplished using dipper and bucket dredges (USACE,
1990). A dipper dredge is a barge mounted power shovel. The dipper is a heavy
duty excavator, useful for breaking up hard, compacted materials. A bucket-type
dredge uses a bucket to excavate materials. A clamshell-type of bucket dredge is
used to excavate soft or cohesive sediments, and is useful for deep excavations
and for close quarters dredging.
Sediments are excavated with a mechanical dredge and placed into a barge,
hopper, or scow for transport to the disposal site. Mechanical dredges typically
remove sediments with approximately the same water content that they have in-
place.
Mechanical dredging causes sediment agitation and resuspension. The force of the
bucket or dipper impacting the bottom, and the loss of sediments as the bucket or
dipper is raised through the water column and emptied into a scow causes
sediments to be suspended in the water column. Due to the oily nature of the
sediments in the IHC, resuspension from mechanical dredging may be higher than
normally expected. An oily sediment would not be as cohesive as a compacted
sediment and would tend to drain more from the bucket when drawn through the
water column and to the scow. A closed bucket design modification to a standard
clamshell dredge has been demonstrated to reduce sediment resuspension by 30 to
70 percent. This modification involves welding plates on top of the bucket and
gaskets or seals on the sides to reduce the amount of resuspension as the bucket
is raised through the water.
20

-------


-------
Advantages of mechanical dredging include greater effectiveness in removing
consolidated sediments and sediments in close quarters, and less uptake of
carriage water. Mechanical dredging uptakes less carriage water, thereby
decreasing the amount of liquid requiring pretreatment and subsequent treatment
by municipal sewage treatment plants. Local wastewater treatment plant capacity
and the amount of CDF effluent should be factors considered when dredging
alternative decisions are made. Mechanical dredging also increases the efficiency
(i.e., capacity and useful lifespan) of a CDF.
Another disadvantage of mechanical dredging, in addition to sediment resuspension
and the uptake of large amounts of carriage water, is that rehandling of sediments
is required. With mechanical dredging, sediments are dredged and placed in a
scow and/or other vehicles for transport to a CDF. Any additional rehandling
increases the potential for accidental releases of contaminated materials.
Hydraulic Dredging
Hydraulic dredges remove and transport sediments in a liquid slurry (USACE,
1990). There are several types of hydraulic dredges including: cutterhead, suction,
dustpan, hopper, and special purpose. These dredges are typically ship or barge
mounted and are powered by electric or diesel centrifugal pumps. The pumps
force the dredged materials, through pipes and hoses, to the disposal or treatment
site.
Hydraulic dredges typically remove sediments with four times the water content
that they have in-place. The dredged material and associated carriage water would
be placed in a CDF, where the water would be removed by evaporation, drainage,
or leaching. The carriage water removed through a drainage system would be
pretreated using sand filtration and carbon sorption and then discharged to the
Hammond, Gary, or East Chicago sanitary sewer system. This water would
21

-------
receive further treatment from those system's wastewater treatment plants and
ultimately be discharged to the GCR.
A cutterhead dredge excavates with a revolving cutter surrounding the intake end
of a suction pipe. The cutterhead cuts the sediment that is then drawn into the
suction pipe along with a large volume of water. The sediment and water are
transported through a pipeline to the disposal site.
A suction dredge is the same as a cutterhead dredge with the cutterhead removed.
Suction dredges are only applicable for removing soft, unconsolidated sediments,
with little or no debris.
A dustpan dredge is a hydraulic suction dredge with a widely flared dredging head
with pressure water jets mounted on the head. The jets loosen and agitate the
sediment, which is then captured in the dustpan head as the dredge is advanced.
The dustpan dredge is typically used for shallow water dredging in large river
channels.
A hopper dredge is a self-propelled seagoing vessel, with large containers (hoppers)
used to store and transport dredged materials. Dredged materials are pumped
through drag arms and discharged into the hoppers. Hopper dredges are used to
dredge large harbors and rivers with ample area to maneuver (USACE, 1990).
Hydraulic dredging has several advantages over mechanical dredging. When
properly selected and operated, hydraulic dredging can maximize the removal of
sediments, leave virtually no silt behind in its path, effectively control turbidity, and
pump the maximum concentration of silt in the slurry in a cost effective manner.
Further advantages include the relative non-disturbance of aquatic ecosystems,
(i.e., as biota evacuate the area of dredging and return upon completion of the
dredging operations) and there is no disturbance of the surrounding shoreline,
22

-------
f

-------
including dock areas, by heavy equipment (WODCON XII, 1989). Hydraulic
dredging is especially advantageous in the removal of contaminated sediments, as
resuspension of dredged materials is kept at a minimum.
Disadvantages of hydraulic dredging include limitations on dredging and disposal,
and from the equipment. Hydraulic dredges are better adapted to dredging more
open areas. Hydraulic dredging also limits the distance that the CDF can be from
the dredged materials. Larger distances between the dredged area and the CDF
increase costs (by increasing the number of pumps and piping required) and the
opportunity for leaks and other accidents with the transport piping.
2.2.2 Treatment Alternatives
Localized areas of sediments in the IHC/GCR (approximately 175,000 cubic yards
in the Federal navigation channel and an estimated 250,000 to 1,000,000 cubic
yards outside the navigation channel and in the GCR) have concentrations of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) exceeding 50 parts per million (ppm); therefore, a
portion of the dredged material for this project is regulated by the TSCA. This Act
requires consideration of incineration and other treatment alternatives for disposal
of TSCA regulated materials. As part of compliance with this Act, the Chicago
District of USACE has conducted an analysis of the applicability of advanced
treatment technologies for dredged materials from the IHC (USACE, 1988). A
number of advanced treatment technologies were examined and screened based on
technical feasibility factors. Based on this analysis, the technologies selected for
additional consideration are summarized below. Each of the treatment
technologies involve the use of a CDF in some capacity (USACE, 1990).
23

-------
Solidification and Stabilization
Solidification and stabilization (S/S) is a technology designed to provide both
physical immobilization with reduced accessibility of water by entrapment of
contaminated solids in a hardened mass (solidification), and chemical
immobilization by alteration of the chemical form of the contaminants so that they
are less soluble and/or less leachable (stabilization).
Solidification is accomplished by adding setting agents that react with water to
form a hardened mass, somewhat like concrete. Material converted to a solid
state is expected to be less susceptible to leaching due to reduced accessibility of
water to the contaminated solids within the hardened mass. Typical setting agents
include Portland cement, lime, fly ash, kiln dust, slag, and combinations of these
materials. Co-additives such as clay minerals, soluble silicates, and sorbents are
sometimes used with the setting agents to give special properties to the final
product.
Stabilization is accomplished by controlling pH and alkalinity. Stabilization primarily
minimizes the solubility of metal contaminants. Conversely, anions are more
difficult to convert to insoluble forms, and most S/S systems rely on physical
immobilization of anions. Organic compounds are generally not affected by
chemical immobilization when portland cement and pozzolan-based systems are
used, however studies have indicated that stabilization does reduce the leachability
of PCBs. No S/S systems have been applied in the United States at field scale to
dredged materials (USACE, 1990).
Solvent Extraction
Extraction is the removal of chemical constituents from contaminated materials in
order to produce an uncontaminated residue. Solvent extraction involves transfer
24

-------
of contaminants from a solid or liquid to another medium, generally a fluid, for
treatment and disposal by another set of processes. Since metals cannot be
degraded, they can only be extracted and relocated. Solvent extraction has
primarily been used to recover organic chemicals from wastewater. Application of
solvent extraction to mixtures of solids and liquids, such as dredged materials, is
still in the developmental stages (USACE, 1990).
Incineration (on-site and off-site)
Incineration uses high temperature (700 to 1,700 degrees C) thermal oxidation to
convert organic wastes to ash and gaseous combustion products. The incineration
gas end product contains primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor plus hydrogen
chloride, nitrogen oxide, phosphoric pentoxide, sulphur dioxide, particulate matter,
and organic products of incomplete combustion. Types of incinerators capable of
handling dredged materials include multiple hearth, rotary kiln, and fluidized bed.
Air pollution control equipment is required for these types of systems.
The destruction and removal efficiency of an incinerator depends on three factors:
temperature, the amount of mixing which occurs between the air and the waste
materials, and the residence time of the waste material in contact with air in the
incinerator. Higher temperatures in the incineration process allows for more
effective destruction and removal of contaminants. Temperature is affected by the
thermodynamic properties of the wastes. Since the thermodynamic properties of
the dredged materials are such that the material will not sustain combustion,
special pretreatment of the materials, such as de-watering and blending with fuel
oil, may be required. The incinerator will also be most effective when the waste
materials are allowed maximum contact with air. The contact area of the waste
materials with air is increased by agitating the waste materials. Likewise, a longer
residence time will increase the effectiveness of the incinerator by maximizing the
contact with air. Gravity de-watering requires long holding periods in containment
25

-------
facilities. Mechanical de-watering is not practical for high volume dredging
projects. The de-watering requirements for incineration may significantly impact
the technical feasibility of the process and could be prohibitive (USACE, 1990).
Wet Air Oxidation
Wet air oxidation is based on aqueous phase oxidation of contaminants at elevated
temperatures and pressures. Contaminants are oxidized at temperatures that are
significantly lower than incineration temperatures. Wet air oxidation uses
temperatures of 250 to 325 degrees C and pressures from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds
per square inch gage (psig). The process produces a vent gas that may contain
volatile organic compounds (requiring removal by air pollution control equipment)
and a slurry containing inorganic ash and partially degraded organics. Destruction
efficiencies for PCBs are around 60 percent. This process has not been
demonstrated for soils or dredged materials (USACE, 1990).
2.2.3	Disposal Alternatives
The locatioh of the USACE CDF will be determined after internal and public review
of the USACE DEIS for the IHC. The USACE would build and maintain the CDF,
and would reserve approximately 250,000 cubic yards capacity in the proposed
CDF for disposal of dredged materials from outside the Federal navigation channel.
This reserved capacity would be available at cost and pending review of the
USACE future CDF requirements. An estimated 250,000 to 1,000,000 cubic
yards of material may be dredged from the IHC/GCR outside the navigation
channel. Therefore, at least a second CDF may be required if the combined
USACE and USEPA-required dredging alternative is chosen.
Four sites were evaluated in the USACE DEIS for potential construction and
operation of a CDF (Figure 2.1). At each of the four sites, several designs and
26

-------

-------
HfMifltf
C9l

Source: Adapted from USACE, 1990.
INLANO STEEL
SITE

4*
6«nr
J-PIT SITE
FIGURE 2.1
Locations of the Confined
Disposal Facilities Proposed in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
plans of operation were considered with respect to engineering, environmental, and
cost factors. A number of environmental controls were developed for each CDF
site to minimize the leaching of contaminants from the dredged sediments (USACE,
1990). The design details for each of the CDFs discussed below are provided in
the USACE DEIS.
141st St. Site
This plan consists of the construction of a CDF at a site located immediately north
of 141st Street and east of the Indiana East-West Tollroad in Hammond. The site
is approximately 80 acres in area on lands owned by petrochemical companies and
is situated several hundred feet south of the Lake George branch of the IHC. The
CDF would be constructed with two cells, a design capacity of 2.0 million cubic
yards, and an estimated design life of 15 to 20 years.
J-Pit Site
This plan consists of the construction of a CDF at a site located west of Colifax
Avenue, east of the E,J,& E Railroad, and south of 15th Avenue in western Gary.
The site is a sand borrow pit, approximately 100 acres in area, and has been
excavated to a depth of approximately 40 feet. The pit has been used for disposal
of construction wastes. The CDF would be constructed with two cells, a design
capacity of 3.0 million cubic yards, and an estimated design life of 30 to 40 years.
Inland Steel Site
This plan consists of the construction of a CDF within the existing lakefill area
surrounded by the Indiana Steel breakwater. The CDF would be rectangular in
shape, approximately 70 acres in area, and divided into 3 cells of equal area. The
28

-------
CDF would be constructed with a design capacity of 3.0 million cubic yards, and
an estimated design life of 30 to 40 years.
Enerov Cooperative. Incorporated (ECU Site
This plan consists of the construction of a CDF at a site located immediately north
of and adjacent to the Lake George branch of the Indiana Harbor Canal. The CDF
would be roughly rectangular in shape, approximately 140 acres in area, and
divided into 2 cells of unequal size. The CDF would be constructed with a design
capacity of 4.25 - 4.75 million cubic yards and an estimated design life of 30 to
40 years.
2.2.4 Sediment Isolation Alternatives
Sediment remediation alternatives which do not involve sediment removal include
sediment capping and in-place treatment.
Sediment Capping
Capping is the process by which in-place sediment contamination is encapsulated
(capped) by clean materials. The intent of capping is to limit the exposure of
sediment contamination to the water column and aquatic life. The feasibility of
capping is dependent on the hydraulics of the waterway. Capping materials must
completely seal the sediment contamination from the overlying water, prevent
penetration from benthic or burrowing organisms, and be resistant to scour. If the
capping material is more dense than the sediments, the capping material may settle
through to the bottom of the sediments. If the cap does not completely seal the
sediments, or if it settles so as to expose the sediments, contaminants may be
released through the cap and into the water column. Capping is only effective if all
sources of sediment contamination are controlled; otherwise, the cap materials
29

-------
would become covered or contaminated by future contaminated sediments
(USACE, 1990).
In-Place Sediment Treatment
In-place (in-situ) treatment consists of the destruction, modification, or
immobilization of one or more sediment contaminants in-place. Little is known
about the feasibility of in-place treatment. Theoretically, feasible methods include
fixation/solidification, requiring the injection of stabilizers and other additives into
the sediment deposits, and biodegradation, involving microorganisms which
degrade organic contaminants in the sediments. Biodegradation is not applicable
to heavy metal contaminants (USACE, 1990).
30

-------
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter briefly addresses the existing environment in and around IHC, the
GCR, and the proposed disposal sites.
3.1 Sediment Quality
The IHC/GCR waterway system has a history of sediment quality problems
(USACE, 1990). The USACE, USEPA, the IDEM, and other entities have
extensively studied the sediment quality of the IHC/GCR. Most of these surveys
focus on the sediments within the Federal navigation channel. Generally, IHC/GCR
sediments are fine-grained (silt and clay) and, therefore, have a high affinity for
adsorbing many pollutants such as PCBs.
Extensive sampling and analysis of IHC/GCR sediments over the last 15 years
reveal that they contain high concentrations of organics (including PCBs and oils),
nutrients, and numerous metals. The first significant study was conducted by
USEPA in 1977 and consisted of the collection of 13 grab samples from the IHC.
Table 3-1 summarizes the results of the USEPA's 1977 study. These sediments,
except for two lakeward samples, were found to be heavily polluted with respect
to a number of parameters according to the USEPA's 1977 Guidelines for
Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments. The heavily polluted
classification applied to various metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron,
lead, nickel, and zinc), PCBs, ammonia, and phosphorus. Most of the sediments in
the IHC were found to consist of oily silt, silt, and clay while those sampled in the
center of the canal, the eastward end of the approach channel, and in the harbor
area were sandy. Sediments in the approach channel consisted of sand and gravel.
Overall, the most heavily contaminated sediments tend to lie in the upstream
portions of the IHC. A general trend of decreasing contamination occurs in a
downstream direction toward Lake Michigan (USACE, 1986; 1990). The USEPA

-------
Table 3-1 Sediment Quality of Indiana Harbor and Canal Sediments Based on USEPA Studies in
1977 and USACE in 1979


USEPA 1977
USACE 1979

Moderately
Mean
Mean
Parameter1
Polluted Range2
Concentration
Concentration
Volatile Solids
5-8
11.6
16
Total Solids
...
...
54
COD
40,000 - 80,000
185,569
191,200
TKN
1000 - 2000
2,592
3,283
Ammonia
75 - 200
285
< 829
Phosphorus
420 - 650
2,577
2,951
Oil and Grease
1000 - 2000
44,631
50,000
Arsenic
3 - 8
29
37
Cadmium
6
9.8
< 11
Chromium
25 - 75
466
404
Copper
25 - 50
174
186
Iron
17,000 - 25,000
110,231
163,000
Lead
40-60
601
882
Magnesium
...
...
16,213
Manganese
300 - 500
207
1,837
Mercury
1
0.5
< 1
Nickel
20 - 50
79
91
Zinc
90 - 200
2,635
4,047
Total PCBs
1
9.5
< 16
1 All parameter concentrations are expressed in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), dry weight, except
for total solids and total volatile solids which are percent.
2USEPA 1977 Guidelines for Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments. Sediments
with concentrations less than the moderately polluted range are considered unpolluted for that
parameter (except for cadmium, mercury and PCBs for which lower limits have not been
established). Sediments with concentrations greater than the moderately polluted range are
considered heavily polluted.
TKN=total Kjeldahl nitrogen; PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls.
Source: compiled from USACE (1986 and 1990).

-------
also sampled sediments from six sites in 1980; three in the upstream reach of the
IHC and three in the Harbor. Samples were analyzed for metals, PCBs, and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Sediments at every sampling location
were again found to be heavily polluted by metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, iron, lead, nickel, and zinc). Again, upstream sediments generally exhibited
higher pollutant concentrations (USACE, 1986).
The USACE conducted a sediment study in 1979 which included the collection and
analysis of IHC sediment core samples from the same 13 locations which USEPA
sampled in 1977. A total of 34 composite sediment samples were analyzed.
Results were similar to those of the USEPA's 1977 survey (Table 3-1). However,
PCB concentrations in sediments from deep samples in two locations had PCB
concentrations which exceeded 50 ppm (USACE, 1986; 1990). Concentrations in
these sediment samples were well above the criteria for being heavily polluted.
Those sediments are therefore regulated by TSCA.
In 1983, the Chicago District of USACE performed two sediment sampling studies
for the purposes of performing PCB and EP-Toxicity tests on 27 core samples. The
PCB tests confirmed the results of the USACE's 1979 study that elevated PCB
levels were limited to two areas in the IHC and that concentrations exceeding 50
ppm were confined to deeper sediments. None of the five samples analyzed for
EP-Toxicity were found to be "hazardous" as defined by RCRA.
In 1984, the Detroit District of USACE collected and analyzed 18 sediment cores
from six sites in the harbor and approach channel of the IHC which included a
complete priority pollutant analysis. Lakeward samples showed low levels of
nearly all pollutants. Nutrients and metals were generally classified as non-polluted
to moderately polluted and organic compounds were not present in detectable
amounts. Sediments from the outer harbor and entrance channel had levels of
PCBs, metals (lead, copper, arsenic, and chromium), and oil and grease and were

-------
classified as heavily polluted according to the 1977 USEPA guidelines. Sixteen
PAH compounds were found in the sediments at low concentrations (USACE,
1986; 1990). However, the USACE Waterways Experiment Station (WES)
collected and analyzed sediment samples from three IHC sites in 1985. Results of
this study indicate some PAH contamination in IHC sediments (USACE, 1990).
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago was contracted in 1987 by
USACE to study the transport and deposition of contaminated sediments
discharged from the IHC into Lake Michigan (Polls, 1988). Sediment samples were
collected along five transects from 30 locations in the canal and harbor areas and
up to 5 miles out from the harbor mouth in Lake Michigan (Figure 3.1). Transect E
covered the Indiana Harbor, Indiana Harbor Canal, Calumet River Branch of the
IHC, and the Lake George Branch of the IHC. Two of the sampling sites were
located in the Indiana Harbor (E(0.6) and E(1.3)), one in the Indiana Harbor Canal
(E(2.7)), one in the Calumet River Branch of the Indiana Harbor Canal (E(3.8)), and
one in the Lake George Branch of the IHC (E(5.4)). These sites were located using
bridges as landmarks and coded as to the site's distance from the navigation light
located at the northern point of the LTV Steel property boundary on Lake Michigan.
Sampling sites were also fixed by LORAN coordinates. The sediments from these
IHC sampling sites consisted of an oily sludge.
The sediment samples from these sites were analyzed for total solids; total volatile
solids; total organic carbon; fats, oils and greases (FOG); arsenic; chromium; iron;
lead; manganese; nickel; zinc; and total PCBs (Polls, 1988). The results of these
analyses are summarized in Table 3-2. Total solids were highest in the lakeward
samples while total volatile solids decreased downstream. Four total volatile solids
samples were classified as heavily polluted; the other total volatile solid samples
were in the moderately polluted range. Total organic carbon (TOC) concentrations
were highest (71,151 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 68,859 mg/kg) at sites
E(3.8) and E(2.7), respectively. Concentrations of FOG constituents were also
34

-------
8(3.0)
C 15.01
015.0)
0(3.0) #
j a
j z
Source: Adapted from Polls, 1988.
FIGURE 3.1
Sediment Sample Locations
In the Indiana Harbor Canal,
Indiana Harbor, and Lake Michigan

-------
Table 3-2 Chemical Characteristics of Sediment Collected Along Transect E in the Indiana Harbor Canal and Indiana Harbor (September
1987)
Sediment Sampling Station
Parameter1
Moderately Polluted Range2
0.6
1.3
2.7
3.8
5.4
Total Solids
—
48.0
40.8
29.1
23.2
26.4
Total Volatile Solids
5 - 8
6.5
9.7
20.6
19.7
20.1
Total Organic Carbon
—
10,392
23,718
68,859
71,151
47,398
Fats, Oils, and Greases
1000 - 2000
12,433
32,968
74,293
59,970
104,224
Arsenic
3 - 8
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
Chromium
25 - 75
108.0
150.0
576.0
478.0
602.0
Iron
17,000 - 25,000
24,000
43,100
45,000
59,900
60,900
Lead
40 - 60
255.0
439.0
963.0
940.0
153.0
Manganese
300 - 500
978.0
1,118.0
996.0
1,207.0
1,207.0
Nickel
20 - 50
30.0
50.0
120.0
70.0
90.0
Zinc
90 - 200
930.0
1,920.0
4,280.0
3,250.0
4,120.0
Total PCBs
1
1.45
2.23
10.14
8.06
17.30
'All parameter concentrations are expressed in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), dry weight, except for total solids and total volatile solids
which are expressed in percent.
2USEPA 1977 Guidelines for Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments. Sediments with concentrations less than the
moderately polluted range are considered unpolluted for that parameter (except for cadmium, mercury and PCBs for which lower limits
have not been established). Sediments with concentrations greater than the moderately polluted range are considered heavily polluted.
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls.
Source: Modified from Polls (1988).

-------
highest in the upstream reaches of the IHC, and were well above the criteria
indicating heavily polluted. Similarly, metal concentrations were highest upstream
when compared to samples taken in the Harbor. Site E(5.4), in the Lake George
Branch, exhibited the highest concentrations of chromium (602 mg/kg), iron
(60,900 mg/kg), manganese (1,207 mg/kg), as well as total PCBs (17.30 mg/kg).
The maximum lead, nickel, and zinc concentrations were detected in the Grand
Calumet Branch of the IHC at site E(2.7) (963, 120, and 4,280 mg/kg,
respectively). Except for arsenic in all samples, and iron and nickel in the most
lakeward sample E(0.6), every sample was in the heavily polluted range for all
metals and PCBs. It should be noted that since samples for site E(5.4) were
collected from just downstream of the Indianapolis Boulevard bridge in the Lake
George Branch of the IHC, a high depositional environment, significant contaminant
accumulation would be expected.
In 1988, the Illinois State Geological Survey and the Illinois Natural History Survey
were commissioned by the Chicago District of USACE to collect and analyze
sediment samples from the IHC and Lake Michigan, to survey the benthos, and to
conduct a series of toxicity screening tests along with a survey of biota and tissue-
burden testing of aquatic organisms (Risatti and Ross, 1989). During this study,
sediment samples were collected and analyzed from three sites in the Indiana
Harbor area (4, 5, and 8a), two sites in the IHC (3 and 12), one in the Lake George
Branch of the IHC (1), and from two sites in the Calumet Branch of the IHC (2a
and 2b) (Figure 3.2 ). Sediment samples were analyzed for constituents which
included phenolics, ammonia, PCBs, PAHs, cyanide, and 26 different metals.
Some results of these analyses are contained in Table 3-3.
As noted in previous studies, high concentrations of metals and nutrients were
found in the IHC (Risatti and Ross, 1989). Concentrations indicating heavily
polluted sediments (according to the 1977 USEPA guidance) were identified for
barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and
37

-------

-------
Table 3-3 Concentrations of Pollutants in Sediment Collected from the Indiana Harbor, Indiana Harbor Canal, Lake George Branch of the
Indiana Harbor Canal, and from the Calumet Branch of the Indiana Harbor Canal (arranged upstream to downstream, 1-5,
respectively).
Sediment Sampling Station
Parameter1
Moderately
Polluted Range2
1
2b
2a
12
3
4
8a
5
TOC
—
12.57
17.81
16.84
10.30
12.66
7.49
7.64
4.60
PAHs
—
935.28
181.53
141.41
107.53
188.18
87.33
24.20
134.36
Ammonia
75 - 200
55.8
234.5
545.0
54.0
101.5
59.0
58.5
52.0
Phenol
—
0.042
0.070
0.070
0.060
0.278 0.071
0.024
0.024
Total PCBs
1
1.51
BDL
102.52
4.55
58.29
BDL
0.00
BDL
Aluminum
—
9,500
15,000
13,000
9,400
13,600
10,300
14,000
7,980
Arsenic
3-8
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
183
BDL
BDL
Barium
20 - 60
180
258
313
120
200
228
128
75
Cadmium
6
23
45
45
30
38
28
33
13
Chromium
25 - 75
940
1,070
993
450
855
423
548
190
Copper
25 - 50
235
268
488
110
275
BDL
90
55
Iron 17,000 - 25,000
76,300 208,000 1
92,000 1
68,000 1
56,000
149,000
164,000
35,500
Lead
40-60
1,430
910
835
388
730
208
BDL
95
Manganese
300 - 500
2,530
6,400
5,850
5,550
5,400
38,200
5,050
1,790
Mercury
1
652
1,360
1,710
826
1,420
594
680
253
Nickel
20 - 50
100
125
115
70
103
100
88
50
Phosphorus
420 - 650
2,640
3,980
6,170
2,100
3,800
976
1,390
446
Zinc
90 - 200
3.540
4.700
4.280
2.470
4.R30
1 -860
4-250
923
1 All parameter concentrations are expressed in parts per million (ppm) except TOC (%), PAHs (parts per billion (ppb)), PCBs (ppb), and
mercury (ppb).
3USEPA 1977 Guidelines for Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments. Sediments with concentrations less than the
moderately polluted range are considered unpolluted for that parameter. Sediments with concentrations greater than the moderately
polluted range are considered heavily polluted.
BDL = below detection limit; TOC = total organic carbon; PAHs = polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; and PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls.
Source for sediment sampling station data: Risatti and Ross, 1989.

-------
zinc in all samples, except for copper and lead in the harbor. Ammonia
concentrations were elevated in sediment samples from the Grand Calumet Branch
of the IHC to indicate heavy pollution. Phosphorus levels in all samples except at
the harbor entrance indicated heavy pollution. Concentrations of PCBs in this
study were significantly less than previously determined. It was hypothesized that
the PCBs were concentrated in deeper sediments as noted above. Site 5, the
harbor entrance, had the lowest concentrations for most parameters.
Site 5 samples were taken from the vicinity of the IHC approach channel while
samples from site 2A and 2B were taken from opposite sides of the Columbus
Drive bridge. Site 5 roughly correlates with the location of site E{0.6) from Polls
(1988) as does site 2 with site E(3.8) (Polls, 1988). Overall, both data sets
suggest a trend of decreasing parameter concentrations in a downstream
(lakeward) direction.
In 1988, USACE contracted Indiana University-Northwest to collect sediment
samples from areas with limited bulk chemical data. Metals, nutrients, and oil and
grease were detected in concentrations comparable with other data from the IHC.
Concentrations of PAHs and PCBs were found to be lower than those found in
other surveys (USACE, 1990).
As a result of the analysis of the sampling data outlined above, all of the sediments
in the IHC have been judged to be "heavily polluted" based on the USEPA's Region
V 1977 "Guidelines for Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments."
Consequently, such sediments are unsuitable for open-water, unconfined disposal.
The USEPA's 1977 guidelines provide a classification scheme by which sediments
can be judged to be relatively "non-polluted", "moderately polluted", or "heavily
polluted" as determined by bulk pollutant concentrations in sediments. The
available data also indicate that IHC sediments are "heavily polluted" with respect
to the following chemical parameters: volatile solids, chemical oxygen demand, oil
40

-------
and grease, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia, cyanide, manganese, phosphorus,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, nickel, lead, zinc, and PCBs. It is
estimated that some 70,000 cubic yards of sediments have PCB concentrations
that exceed 50 parts per million (ppm). Such sediments classify as "toxic" and are
subject to regulation under TSCA. The highest PCB levels have been recorded in
the deeper sediments of the extreme upstream portion of the Calumet River Branch
of the IHC (between the turning basin and the Federal navigation channel) and in
the vicinity of the north bank area between the two most downstream bridges (the
Conrail and EJ&E railroad bridges) (USACE, 1986; 1990).
An extensive investigation of sediment quality in the GCR was performed on behalf
of USX by Floyd Browne Associates (Floyd Browne Associates, Inc., 1991) in
1991 in accordance with the Consent Decree which USX signed with USEPA in
October 1990. The Sediment Characterization Study (SCS) survey area extended
from the GCR's eastern headwaters just above USX Outfall 001 to the Columbus
Drive bridge. The study also encompassed a segment of the West Branch of the
GCR from Indianapolis Boulevard to its confluence with the Calumet River Branch
of the IHC. This study is intended to culminate in the development of a Sediment
Remediation Plan for the GCR.
Sediment samples were collected from 59 profiles which were numbered
sequentially from just upstream of USX Outfall 001 to the Columbus Drive bridge
on the Calumet River Branch of the IHC. The SCS included the analysis of
"softside" sediment samples (taken from the top 18 to 24 inches of saturated
sediment). Also, general analytical samples were collected from each profile and
generally composited across the width of the river. In addition to general analysis
for metals, inorganics, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), PCBs, dioxins and
furans, other tests performed on certain samples included physical tests, Toxic
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analyses, and Acid Volatile Sulfide (AVS)
41

-------
analyses. Table 3-4 summarizes the analytical results from the general sediment
samples.
Analysis of the general samples yielded several interesting trends. Based on
concentrations in the upper sampling horizon, copper, iron, lead, and zinc increased
gradually from Profile 1 to Profile 36 (located near the Gary Sanitary District), at
which a sharp drop in parameter concentrations was detected. Additional
concentration spikes were noted at a number of profile locations between Profile
45 (just downstream from Cline Avenue) to Profile 62 (just upstream of the
Columbus Drive bridge). Arsenic and cadmium exhibited a similar trend except that
concentrations were more uniform between Profile 1 and 36. Several VOCs
(benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes) had highest concentrations
between Profiles 2 and 11 while concentrations were below detection or very low
elsewhere in the GCR. Similarly, PCB (particularly Aroclors 1248 and 1254) and
PAH concentrations were high between Profiles 2 and 11. Mean pollutant
concentrations throughout the GCR indicate heavily polluted sediments with
respect to oil and grease, PCBs, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead,
mercury, nickel, and zinc. Concentrations of total Kjeldahl nitrogen and
phosphorus indicate moderately polluted sediments.
Profile and other data obtained from the SCS were used to calculate the total
volume of "sludge" (defined in the SCS as visibly contaminated sediment) present
in East Branch of the GCR, in the West Branch from Indianapolis Boulevard to its
confluence with the Calumet River Branch of the IHC, and in the Calumet River
Branch of the IHC from the confluence to the Columbus Drive bridge. The
contaminated sediment volume was estimated to be approximately 1.1 million
cubic yards. Sediment types were found to range from a silty clay to a clayey
sand within the upper 12 inches to a silt or clayey silt in the subsurface. Sands
were found to underlie the silty subsurface (Floyd Browne Associates, Inc., 1991).
42

-------
Table 3-4
Summary of General Sediment Quality Characteristics of the Grand Calumet River
Mean	Maximum
Parameter1
Moderately Polluted Range2
Concentration
Concentration
Total Solids
—
53
84
TOC

42,400
180,000
TKN
1000 - 2000
1,356
6,130
Phenolics
...
8.3
62
Oil and Grease
1000 - 2000
17,700
140,000
Acenaphthene

498
6,300
Anthracene

290
8,200
Benzene

30
583
Benzo(a)anthracene

117
1,400
Chrysene

109
1,400
Fluoranthene

577
9,000
Naphthalene

1,281
30,000
Pyrene

296
4,300
Total PCBs
1
46
1,006
Reactive Sulfide

563
4,020
Total Cyanide

244
2,220
Phosphorus
420 - 650
428
2,210
Arsenic
3 - 8
79
4,900
Barium

79
210
Cadmium
6
7.8
600
Chromium
25 - 75
131
1,300
Copper
25 - 50
152
3,400
Iron
17,000 - 25,000
190,000
790,000
Lead
40-60
873
34,000
Mercury
1
1.2
10
Nickel
20-50
66
2,700
Zinc
90 - 200
2.360
16.000
1AII parameter concentrations are expressed in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) except total solids
which is expressed in percent.
2USEPA 1977 Guidelines for Pollutional Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments. Sediments
with concentrations less than the moderately polluted range are considered unpolluted for that
parameter (except for cadmium, mercury and PCBs for which lower limits have not been
established). Sediments with concentrations greater than the moderately polluted range are
considered heavily polluted.
TKN=total Kjeldahl nitrogen; PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls; and TOC = total organic carbon.
Source: Compiled from Floyd Browne Associates, Inc. (1991).

-------
3.2 Water Quality
Surface Water
The quality of surface waters within the IHC/GCR has been affected by both point
source and non-point source discharges. These discharge sources include some 40
permitted outfalls to the IHC/GCR system as well as sewer overflow discharges
from the sanitary districts of Gary, Hammond, and East Chicago. These waters
were classified by the State of Indiana for use as industrial water supply, partial
body contact, and limited aquatic life waters. On 3 March 1990, new water
quality standards went into effect for the IHC/GCR and Lake Michigan. These
standards served to elevate the potential recreational and aquatic life uses of the
IHC/GCR and established stringent numerical water quality criteria for some 90
pollutants. Currently, the IHC/GCR is classified for industrial water supply, full
body contact, and general use (full aquatic life). In addition, the Indiana portion of
Lake Michigan was classified as an outstanding state resource water. This
provides for the maintenance of the existing high water quality of Lake Michigan
without degradation. A number of water quality parameters have been identified
as being of concern in the IHC/GCR including ammonia, bacteria (fecal coliform),
and oil and grease as well as several priority pollutants (e.g., copper, lead,
mercury, and PCBs) (IDEM, 1991; State of Indiana, 1990).
As compared to Lake Michigan, the ambient water quality of the IHC/GCR system
is considered to be poor as the system receives substantial inflow from municipal
and industrial wastewater discharge sources (USACE, 1990). A study of the
water quality of the IHC was conducted in 1980 (USACE, 1986). Grab samples
were taken from six sites within the confines of the navigation channel.
Concentrations of ammonia nitrogen, total phosphorus, cyanide, phenolics, and oil
and grease were found to be in violation of the water quality standards. Parameter
concentrations were found to be generally higher in the upper reaches of the IHC.
44

-------
Table 3-5 summarizes the water quality data from this study (USACE, 1986). The
USACE Chicago District commissioned the preparation of water quality study of
the IHC by Polls and Dennison (1984). IHC waters were found to violate water
quality standards for phenolics, fecal coliform, iron, and dissolved oxygen. Table
3-5 also summarizes these data.
Many parameters exceed the allowable water quality standards for the IHC/GCR
system. Based on the most recent data available, ammonia concentrations in the
IHC/GCR typically exceed the state standard. According to IDEM data, ammonia
nitrogen concentrations in the IHC/GCR range from 0.60 to 1.96 milligrams per
liter (mg/L). The state criterion for ammonia in ambient waters (outside mixing
zones) for the East Branch of the GCR and IHC is 0.20 mg/L. Fecal coliform
bacteria concentrations typically exceed the state criterion of 125/100 milliliters
(ml) during the winter. The IDEM has recorded fecal coliform concentrations
ranging from 39 to 3,055/100 ml (USACE, 1990; State of Indiana, 1990). Oil and
grease levels have been a problem in the IHC/GCR system as exemplified by the
presence of oily sheens on the water surface. This situation is expected to persist
since significant quantities of petroleum-based materials are contained in IHC/GCR
sediments (IDEM, 1991). Oil and grease concentrations in IHC/GCR waters range
from 2.9 to 5.6 mg/L, according to IDEM data. The state water quality criterion
for oil and grease is 10 mg/L (USACE, 1990).
While metal concentrations have been cited as being of concern within the
IHC/GCR system (IDEM, 1991), the most recent available data indicate that most
metal concentrations do not exceed the state's water quality criteria. IDEM data
indicate that copper concentrations range from 5 to 7 micrograms per liter (//g/L).
The State acute aquatic criterion (AAC) for copper is 31.3 //g/L, based on an
average hardness value of 183 mg/L (as the AAC is a hardness dependent value).
Most of the priority pollutant metal AACs are hardness dependent and are applied
outside the zone of initial dilution or, as applicable, outside the zone of discharge-
45

-------
Table 3-5 Water Quality Characteristics of the Indiana Harbor and Canal Based on Studies
Conducted by USEPA in 1981 and Polls and Dennison in 1984



USEPA 19812
Polls and Dennison
19842
Parameter
Units
State
Standard
Mean
Concentration
Mean
Concentration
Dissolved Solids
mg/L
...
247.2
267.3
Suspended Solids
mg/L
...
18.2
9.5
BOD
mg/L
...
11.8
3.8
COD
mg/L
...
37.7
20.5
TKN
mg/L
...
2.25
3.79
Phenolics
//g/L
10
7.7
14.8
Ammonia nitrogen
mg/L
0.02
1.66
0.64
Cyanide
mg/L
50
110.3
12.3
Total Phosphorus
mg/L
0.10
0.11
< 0.1
Oil and Grease
mg/L
10
6.8
2.6
Arsenic
//g/L
...
15.7
1.0
Cadmium
//g/L
—
< 2
0.33
Chromium
(Hexavalent)
//g/L
25.03
...
< 2
Copper
//g/L
...
9.0
17.6
Iron
//g/L
3004
1445.0
554.9
Lead
//g/L
25
< 30
5.0
Manganese
//g/L
...
60.0
122
Mercury
//g/L
0.5
0.17
0.09
Nickel
//g/L
...
< 30
...
Zinc
//g/L
...
81.7
0.08
1 Source: USACEI1990).
2Source: USACE (1986).
Total Chromium Standard.
4Dissolved Iron Standard.
BOD = biochemical oxygen demand; COD = chemical oxygen demand; and TKN = total kjeldahl nitrogen.

-------
induced mixing. The AACs were developed to assure the protection of aquatic life.
Lead concentrations have been recorded in the '\0 jjq/L range. The State AAC for
lead is 176.2 //g/L and is hardness dependent. The concentration of mercury in
IHC surface waters has been recorded in the 0.1 //g/L range. The state AAC for
mercury is 2.4 //g/L. There are no IDEM data available on PCB concentrations
(USACE, 1990; State of Indiana, 1990).
Groundwater
The Calumet aquifer underlies the IHC/GCR area (USACE, 1990). The aquifer is
surficial, lying beneath approximately 10 feet of overburden. It is shallow and
composed of fine to medium sand with a saturated thickness of 0 to 45 feet. The
aquifer is underlain by glacial till and clay. The Calumet aquifer discharges to the
Little Calumet River, IHC/GCR system, and Lake Michigan. Water levels in the
aquifer have decreased with development in the region. The aquifer is not a major
water supply source to the area.
Groundwater contamination and groundwater discharge to surface waters are of
concern in the area. A preliminary study has indicated that groundwater quality
varies with land use. Elevated concentrations of phenolics, benzene, and ammonia
nitrogen have been found in some wells. A layer of petrochemical pollution
contaminates the aquifer in the IHC area. Some of the pollution, characterized as
No. 2 fuel oil, is being reclaimed and used by local industry. The USACE DEIS for
the IHC includes more specific information on regional and site-specific
groundwater conditions at the proposed CDF sites.
47

-------
3.3 Biological Resources
Biological Resources potentially affected by the program include the aquatic habitat
in the IHC/GCR and southern Lake Michigan, and the aquatic, terrestrial, and
wetlands habitat within the alternative sites for the CDF.
3.3.1 Aquatic Habitats
Aquatic habitats potentially affected by the program include the nearshore waters
of southern Lake Michigan and the waters of the IHC and GCR. Until the early
1900's, Lake Michigan supported a significant commercial native fishery. Since
then, this fishery has declined due to water pollution, over-fishing, and the
introduction of exotic species. A primarily put-and-take salmonid fishery has been
established in Lake Michigan through multi-jurisdictional stocking efforts since the
late 1960's. Details concerning periphyton, plankton, invertebrate, and fish
species in southern Lake Michigan are provided in the USACE DEIS for the IHC
(USACE, 1990).
In March 1990, new water quality standards went into effect for the IHC/GCR and
Lake Michigan. These standards served to upgrade the recreational and aquatic life
uses of the IHC/GCR. These new standards indicate that the IHC/GCR is suitable
for full aquatic life use which includes industrial water supply, full body contact,
and general use.
Biological surveys prior to 1970 have reported a virtual absence of biota in the
canal and only limited biotic communities near the mouth of the harbor (USACE,
1990). More recent observations by the Illinois State Geological Survey and Illinois
Natural History Survey indicate a low diversity of periphyton, plankton, and
invertebrate species. The existing benthic community is characterized by a low
48

-------
species diversity and a high density of pollution tolerant organisms such as
tubificids and chironomids (Risatti and Ross, 1989; USACE, 1990).
The Marquette Park lagoons, headwaters of the east branch of the GCR, support a
higher diversity of benthic invertebrates than do other studied areas in the
IHC/GCR (USACE, 1990). The lagoons are upstream of industrial discharges and
are connected to the GCR only by partially-constricted culverts (IDEM, 1991). The
eastern areas of the lagoons exhibit better water quality while the western lagoon
is affected by non-point runoff from the neighboring industrial areas.
Although several fish species have been identified during surveys of the IHC/GCR,
sport fishing is limited by safety hazards from large ships, by the poor aesthetics of
the area, and by chemical contamination. A fish consumption advisory has been
issued stating that no fish from the IHC/GCR should be eaten (USACE, 1990).
Researchers have found elevated levels of certain heavy metals (lead, copper,
chromium, and zinc) but low levels of mercury and zinc in fish from the IHC (Risotti
and Ross, 1989). Aquatic communities in the GCR, especially the west branch,
are depressed due to low dissolved oxygen as well as toxic stress (IDEM, 1991).
3.3.2 Terrestrial Habitats
Terrestrial biota on lands immediately surrounding the IHC/GCR is generally very
limited in diversity and abundance due to the urbanized and industrial nature of the
area and the lack of significant areas of natural habitat (USACE, 1990). Where
terrestrial vegetation does occur, it is generally characterized as weedy pioneering
species or urban ornamental species. The Lake Michigan shoreline is a major
flyway for loons, grebes, waterfowl, raptors, and shorebirds. A diversity of
migratory bird species seasonally occur in large numbers in the IHC/GCR area.
However, only a limited number of bird species forage or nest in the area.
Terrestrial lands within the alternative sites for the CDFs also comprise disturbed
49

-------
lands that support sparse vegetation and that are of limited ecological value as
terrestrial habitats.
3.3.3 Wetlands
Wetlands are defined by USACE and USEPA as areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas (FICWD, 1989). Shallow waters within the IHC
and GCR that support or periodically support emergent vegetation are wetlands.
Paved areas abutting the waterways are not wetlands even if they occupy areas
that previously had been wetlands. Certain unpaved areas that are periodically
saturated or inundated and support vegetation characteristic of wetlands may meet
the definition for wetlands even if they have been previously disturbed or
developed.
Roxana Marsh, located near the hydraulic divide of the west branch of the Calumet
River, is a wetland of particular note (IDEM, 1991). The marsh is a potentially
important refuge and nursery area for aquatic species. This freshwater wetland
contains dense cattail stands which provide cover for wildlife. Through natural
succession the cattails are spreading to shoreline areas adjacent to the marsh.
Any site selected for a CDF would be inspected for the presence of wetlands using
technical procedures in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(USACE, 1987). The boundaries of any wetlands identified would be delineated.
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps indicate that portions of the 141st Street
Site and the J-Pit Site are wetlands. A field study would be required to determine
how much, if any, of the wetlands identified on the NWI maps actually meet the
definition of wetlands. Any wetlands on either site have been subjected to

-------
previous disturbance. No areas meeting the definition of wetlands occur on the
Inland Steel Site or on the ECI Site (USACE, 1990).
3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
A biological assessment was prepared in 1989 under the authority of Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act by USACE in response to comments provided by the
Bloomington, Indiana field office of USFWS concerning the proposed dredging in
the Federal navigation channel (USACE, 1990). The USEPA would consult with
USFWS and update the biological assessment to include activities proposed for
waters outside the Federal navigation channel.
Federally listed threatened or endangered species addressed by USACE include the
Indiana bat (Myotis soda/is) (endangered), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
(endangered), and pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcherii) (threatened). Federal
candidate species thought to possibly occur in the affected area include the forked
aster (Aster furcatus), heart-leaved plantain (Plantago cordata), fragrant (beach)
sumac (Rhus trilobata arenaria), prairie fame flower (Talinum rudosperum), and
Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides me/issa samue/is) (USACE, 1990).
The Indiana bat hibernates in caves during the winter and forages and breeds along
wooded riparian habitats during the rest of the year. The species nests in mature
trees with loose bark that are generally over 16 inches in diameter at breast height
(DBH). Suitable nesting trees are not likely to occur in the heavily urbanized
terrestrial lands in the affected area. The closest recorded sightings of the species
are in the Kankakee River basin in Indiana and Cook County in Illinois.
Peregrine falcons migrate and forage along the Indiana shoreline in September and
October. The falcon primarily forages on birds in open areas and often near water.
51

-------
The peregrine falcon will roost and forage in urban environments. A number of
these birds have been released in the area as part of a reintroduction effort.
Pitcher's thistle occurs primarily on shoreline dunes close to the Great Lakes.
Although any natural dunes near southern Lake Michigan could potentially harbor
this plant species, the urbanized lands in the affected area would not contain
intact, vegetated dunes.
Federal candidate species are not likely to occur along the IHC/GCR. The four
candidate plant species occur in specialized natural habitats such as sand dunes,
prairie, forested slopes, and forested riparian areas. Urbanized lands would not
provide suitable habitat for any of these species. The Karner blue butterfly is
found locally in pine barren habitats associated with wild blue lupine (Lupinus
perennis), which is its larval food source.
Each of the CDF alternative sites were inspected for the species described above
by USACE biologists between 1981 and 1989. None of the species have been
sighted (USACE, 1990). Urbanized lands bordering the GCR upstream of the
Federal navigation channel are not likely to support any of these species. Other
lands would have to be inspected for the possible presence of the plant species.
Any undeveloped lands containing trees over 16 inches DBH would have to be
inspected for the Indiana bat, and any undeveloped lands containing wild blue
lupine would have to be inspected for the Karner blue butterfly.
3.4 Other Significant Resources
Other discipline areas considered in preparing this Supplement were geology and
soils, air quality, archaeological and historic resources, and socioeconomics. Of
these, only air quality, and socioeconomics were considered to be affected by the
proposed activities in the IHC/GCR and surrounding area.
52

-------
Air Quality
Air quality in the project area is generally poor when compared to the standards
specified in the Clean Air Act (USACE, 1990). Industrialization and urbanization in
the region have been the major causes. Most of Lake County, where the IHC/GCR
is located, is classified as a "non-attainment" area for sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, and ozone. Non-attainment is a designation for those areas where
ambient air quality concentrations exceed national ambient air quality standards for
at least one criteria pollutant. Standards for lead and particulate matter are also
violated occasionally, although particulate concentrations have been declining
during recent years.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are also an air quality concern in the proposed
project area. PCBs, PAHs, and other VOCs can volatilize into the air from
sediments and the water column. Concentrations of PCBs up to 11.0
nanograms/m3 of air were measured in the 1970's. These airborne VOCs can also
be deposited into water bodies. The relationships between sediment and water
contaminant volatilization and air to water contaminant deposition is currently
under investigation.
Socioeconomics
The project area is a large steel and petroleum production and processing center
and is heavily industrialized. The local communities are intensely dependent upon
these industries, especially the steel industry. The harbor is a major shipping port
for oil and other industries in the area. These industries rely on IHC shipping for
supply and product transportation.
53

-------
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
54

-------
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter briefly discusses the potential impacts of sediment management
alternatives and USEPA initiatives, as well as cumulative impacts of all alternatives
when considered together.
4.1 Impacts of Sediment Management Policy Alternatives
Environmental impacts of sediment management alternatives are discussed in this
section. Impacts of sediment management policy and technology alternatives are
discussed separately, with respect to sediment quality, water quality, and
biological and other significant resources as available data permit.
4.1.1	Impacts of No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, USACE would not perform maintenance dredging
of the Federal navigation channel nor would USEPA require the dredging of any
areas outside the channel in the IHC or any areas in the GCR. The navigability of
the IHC would continue to be impeded as shoaling persists and worsens as
sedimentation continues. Existing contamination, undiminished, would continue to
have deleterious effects on sediment and water quality. Without action, the
contaminated sediments within the IHC/GCR system would continue to serve as a
reservoir of pollutants to be transported into Lake Michigan.
Sediment quality in the IHC/GCR system would continue to be impacted as
relatively clean deposits would likely become contaminated by the existing in-place
polluted sediments. Specifically, currents, storms, canal traffic and bioturbation by
aquatic organisms would act to rework and to redistribute the existing
contamination in the underlying sediments back to the surface thereby maintaining
high levels of surface sediment contamination. The sediments and pollutants could
55

-------
be resuspended and transported elsewhere and otherwise made available for
uptake by the biota. Contaminated sediments would also continue to have chronic
and acute toxic effects on aquatic organisms. This would have a lasting effect on
the viability of the aquatic ecosystems of the IHC/GCR and nearshore Lake
Michigan.
Sediment quality impacts would continue to persist in Lake Michigan under the No
Action Alternative due to the continued discharge of approximately 180 million
pounds of contaminated sediment from the IHC/GCR to the nearshore area of Lake
Michigan each year (IDEM, 1991). Approximately 67,000 pounds of chromium,
25,000 pounds of copper, 100,000 pounds of lead, and 360 pounds of PCBs are
discharged with this annual sediment load. At present, the IHC/GCR system is in a
steady-state condition in which deposition is in equilibrium with transport. Thus,
the annual loading of sediment to the IHC/GCR equals its discharge to Lake
Michigan (USACE, 1990). The discharge and deposition of these sediments would
continue to deteriorate the quality of bottom sediments in Lake Michigan,
particularly in the nearshore areas.
Existing sediment contamination within the IHC/GCR would potentially continue to
affect water quality as the sediments would serve as a pollutant reservoir for the
water column and exert other negative effects. Under the No Action Alternative,
sediment pollutants (e.g., soluble metals and organics) would continue to have the
potential to migrate from the sediment into the water column where they could be
more easily bioaccumulated and exert acute and chronic toxic effects on aquatic
organisms. In addition, the presence of high concentrations of organic matter in
the IHC/GCR sediments induce microbial activity which depletes the supply of
dissolved oxygen (DO) in the overlying water column. This, in turn, inhibits
aquatic life in the IHC/GCR. This situation is exacerbated as nutrients, which are
found in high concentration in IHC/GCR sediments, are released to the water
column contributing to eutrophication and further DO depletion. Finally, the

-------
continued resuspension of contaminated sediments within the water column would
expose aquatic organisms to a larger surface area of contaminated sediments
(USACE, 1990). This would increase the likelihood for acute and chronic toxic
effects as well as for pollutant uptake and bioaccumulation.
The water quality of the open lake and nearshore areas of Lake Michigan would
continue to be impacted under the No Action Alternative due to the transport of
contaminated sediments from the IHC/GCR, as described above. The ultimate
resuspension of these contaminated sediments and the release of soluble
contaminants from bottom and suspended sediments would allow for contaminant
uptake by aquatic organisms and, ultimately, by man through ingestion. In
addition, this situation would pose a potential threat to drinking water supplies as
such sediments may be entrained through municipal surface water intakes (USACE,
1990).
The No Action Alternative would not involve any direct physical disturbance to
existing benthic organisms or emergent vegetation in the IHC/GCR. However,
shipping activities and other sediment disturbances in the IHC/GCR would
physically agitate the in-place sediments. Not removing contaminated sediments
from the IHC/GCR would result in continued exposure of aquatic biota in both the
IHC/GCR and southern Lake Michigan to contamination originating from those
sediments. Contaminants in surface sediments and the water column can be
acutely toxic to aquatic biota, whereby short-term exposures cause rapid death, or
chronicly toxic, whereby long-term exposures at less than fatal concentrations
cause impaired health, growth, or reproduction. Contaminants can also
bioaccumulate in the tissues of aquatic organisms, especially organisms high in the
food chain such as most sportfish. Mobile aquatic organisms would continue to
accumulate and transport contaminants with them, thereby dispersing
contaminants from the IHC/GCR to the nearshore waters of Lake Michigan.
57

-------
Continued microbial metabolism of organic materials in the accumulated sediments
in the IHC/GCR could result in the continued depletion of DO in the water column
and in the release of organically bound plant nutrients to the water column. Low
levels of DO are fatal to most aquatic biota, including fish, and high concentrations
of plant nutrients in water results in algal blooms. These algal blooms are
unsightly and are subject to rapid die-off causing additional DO depletion as
decomposition occurs.
4.1.2	Impacts of USACE Dredging of the Federal Navigation Channel Only
(No USEPA Activities)
Maintenance dredging by USACE without USEPA action, would likely have long-
term positive impacts on sediment and water quality within the IHC/GCR system
and adjacent Lake Michigan. However, short-term negative impacts would be
likely.
Sediment quality within the Federal navigation channel portion of the IHC would
improve as approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of existing contaminated
sediment would be removed under this alternative. This would also minimize the
likelihood of contaminated sediments being resuspended and transported into Lake
Michigan. This would result in a reduction of the impacts to Lake Michigan which
were discussed under the No Action Alternative. Restoration of the project depth
of the Federal navigation channel through maintenance dredging would create a
sediment trap which would reduce (by approximately 50 percent) the 150,000
cubic yards of contaminated sediment entering Lake Michigan each year (IDEM,
1991; and USEPA and IDEM, 1992). Periodic maintenance dredging would reduce
future contaminated sediment loading to Lake Michigan by 50 to 70 percent
(USACE, 1990). Sediment quality in the areas outside the Federal navigation
channel, particularly in the upstream reaches of the Calumet River Branch of the
58

-------
IHC and in the GCR (West and East branches), would not be directly affected as
USACE dredging would not occur in these areas.
The USACE dredging activities would likely have short-term negative impacts on
sediment quality. Some contaminated sediment would be resuspended during
dredging and be transported into Lake Michigan and be deposited. However, most
of this resuspended material would settle within the IHC where it would be
removed by future dredging operations. Resuspension would be reduced by the
use of the closed bucket clamshell dredge or hydraulic dredging, where possible.
Removal of surficial contaminated sediments may temporarily expose deeper
sediments with contamination levels that are higher than in the original surficial
sediments that have been removed. It is expected that new sediment deposition
from the upstream reaches would cover these deeper sediments with surficial
materials of comparable quality to those removed despite pollutant controls
reducing the amount of contaminated materials entering the IHC/GCR (USACE,
1990).
Maintenance dredging within the Federal navigation channel would initially reduce
adverse water quality impacts within the IHC by removing contaminants which
could otherwise be resuspended. However, equally contaminated sediments from
the upstream reaches would replace those removed by USACE dredging. The
sediment trap created by USACE dredging would decrease adverse water quality
impacts to Lake Michigan. No improvement to the water quality of the GCR or the
upper reaches of the Calumet River Branch of the IHC (upstream of the navigation
channel) would be likely as these areas are upstream of the dredging and
contaminated sediments in these areas would be unaffected.
Short-term negative impacts on water quality would likely include increased levels
of turbidity and suspended solids in the IHC. The concentration of suspended
solids would be expected to range between 50 and 500 mg/L immediately around
59

-------
the dredge. The resuspension of sediments would release certain contaminants in
the water column such as ammonia, metals, and trace organics, but concentrations
of these pollutants would be diluted rapidly downstream. As described above,
water quality within the IHC may deteriorate temporarily as pollutants are released
into the water column from the more contaminated sediments underlying the
dredge depth. In addition, the exposed underlying sediments would briefly reduce
the dissolved oxygen content of the overlying water column. Oil and grease,
containing such contaminants as PCBs and PAHs, would likely be resuspended
during dredging to form an oil slick on the water surface. Oil booms and sorbents
would be used to minimize the impact from this event (USACE, 1990).
Overall, contaminated sediments not dredged from outside the Federal navigation
channel within the IHC/GCR would continue to negatively affect sediment and
water quality as these sediments are resuspended. Shipping activity would
resuspend contaminants in the slips and docks lining the IHC. Sediments would
also move laterally and downstream under the influence of flow, seiche action, and
currents. Over time, these sediments would be deposited within the Federal
navigation channel as the IHC/GCR system works to reestablish sediment transport
equilibrium. These sediments would recontaminate new and relatively cleaner
sediments as well as reduce the long-term effectiveness and life span of the
sediment trap created by the USACE dredging project.
Removal of approximately 1.2 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments
would prevent future exposure of aquatic biota to contaminants in those
sediments. This would be a beneficial impact to aquatic biota, but it would not
completely eliminate the potential for future exposure to contaminants in sediments
remaining in the IHC/GCR. The USACE would only remove sediments to a
specified navigation depth, leaving deeper sediments in place. Aquatic biota in the
upper non-navigable reaches of the GCR would not be benefitted, and mobile biota
60

-------
would continue to transport bioaccumulated contaminants downstream to the
navigable waters and to nearshore Lake Michigan.
Physical disruption of sediments by dredging would result in temporary exposure of
aquatic biota to localized increases in contaminant concentrations. Resuspended
sediments and exposure of deeper, more contaminated sediment layers would
result from dredging. Existing benthic organisms within the Federal navigation
channel would be destroyed or injured by the dredging operations, but a new
benthic community would colonize the channel bottom following completion of the
dredging. Some fish may be attracted to the area of dredging and be physically
injured or destroyed.
A biological assessment prepared by USACE in 1989 concluded that dredging the
Federal navigation channel would not result in significant impacts to Federally-listed
threatened or endangered species or critical habitat (USACE, 1990). The USFWS
would be consulted to determine whether an updated biological assessment would
be necessary.
4.1.3 Impacts of USEPA-Required Dredging for Remediation Outside the
Federal Navigation Channel Only (No USACE Activities)
The USEPA-required dredging of areas outside the Federal navigation channel
would have positive long-term impacts on sediment and water quality throughout
the IHC/GCR. The positive effects would be most pronounced and long-lasting in
the upstream portions of the IHC/GCR. However, short-term negative impacts
would be likely.
Dredging of the areas upstream and outside the Federal navigation channel would
also decrease (by approximately 50 percent) the contaminated sediment load
entering the lower portion of the IHC/GCR and, ultimately, Lake Michigan. This
61

-------
would greatly reduce the potential for the resuspension and downstream transport
of contaminated sediments which contribute to contamination. This action would
also decrease the potential for long-term dispersion of sediment contaminants in
the water column and the resulting decrease in ambient water quality. Under this
alternative, sediment and water quality within the West Branch of the GCR, East
Branch of the GCR, and in the Calumet River Branch of the IHC (upstream of the
Federal navigation channel) would likely improve substantially.
Short-term negative impacts on water quality would likely include increased levels
of turbidity and suspended solids in the IHC/GCR. The concentration of suspended
solids would be expected to range between 50 and 500 mg/L immediately around
the dredge. The resuspension of sediments would release certain contaminants in
the water column such as ammonia, metals, and trace organics, but concentrations
of these pollutants would be diluted rapidly downstream. As described above,
water quality within the IHC/GCR may deteriorate temporarily as pollutants are
released into the water column from the more contaminated sediments underlying
the dredge depth. In addition, the exposed underlying sediments would briefly
reduce the DO content of the overlying water column. Oil and grease, containing
such contaminants as PCBs and PAHs, would likely be resuspended during
dredging to form an oil slick on the water surface. Oil booms and sorbents would
be used to minimize the impact from this event.
In the absence of USACE dredging of the IHC, sediment quality and any water
quality improvements in areas outside and adjacent to the Federal navigation
channel would likely be short-term. Resuspension and migration of contaminated
sediments from the Federal navigation channel would eventually re-pollute
sediments outside and adjacent to the channel. These re-contaminated sediments
could then be resuspended and potentially transported into Lake Michigan.
62

-------
Aquatic biota in the IHC/GCR and nearshore Lake Michigan would no longer be
potentially exposed to contaminants in any sediments removed by dredging.
However, this alternative would not eliminate the potential for exposure to
contaminants in sediments remaining in the Federal navigation channel. The
potential exposure of aquatic biota in the upstream non-navigable reaches of the
GCR would be greatly reduced, although mobile species would continue to
transport contaminants upstream that have been bioaccumulated from the
navigable reaches of the IHC/GCR.
As with the USACE dredging only alternative (section 4.1.1.2), physical disruption
of sediments by dredging would result in temporary exposure of aquatic biota to
localized increases in contaminant concentrations. Resuspended sediments and
exposure of deeper, more contaminated sediment layers would result from
dredging outside the Federal navigation channel. Existing benthic organisms
outside the channel would be destroyed or injured by the dredging operations, but
a new benthic community would colonize the channel bottom following completion
of the dredging. Some fish may be attracted to the area of dredging and be
physically injured or destroyed. Additionally, some dredging could take place in
shallow waters that presently support emergent vegetation, thereby destroying it.
Dredging could deepen these waters to the point that emergent vegetation would
not re-establish.
The biological assessment prepared by USACE in 1989 did not address dredging in
waters outside the Federal navigation channel (USACE, 1990). The USFWS would
be consulted to determine whether a new biological assessment would be
necessary to determine whether this alternative could result in significant impacts
to Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat.
63

-------
4.1.4 Impacts of Combined USACE and USEPA-Required Dredging
Combined USEPA and USACE activities would likely have the most significant and
long-lasting positive effect on sediment and water quality with the IHC/GCR
system and on adjacent Lake Michigan. However, short-term negative impacts
would be likely. The removal of contaminated sediments from the upstream
portion of the IHC/GCR and from areas outside and adjacent to the Federal
navigation channel would greatly reduce the overall contaminated sediment load to
the lower portion of the system and to Lake Michigan. This would result in
positive long-term sediment and water quality impacts as discussed in Section
4.1.3. USACE dredging of the Federal navigation channel would remove a
substantial portion of the contaminated sediment available for resuspension and
transport from the lower portion of the IHC/GCR to Lake Michigan. This would
have positive long-term sediment and water quality impacts as described in Section
4.1.2.
The restoration of the design depth of the Federal navigation channel would allow
it to function as an effective sediment trap. This sediment trap would then be
capable of further mitigating the potential migration of contaminated sediments
into the nearshore areas of Lake Michigan. The approximately 150,000 cubic
yards of contaminated sediments entering Lake Michigan each year would be
reduced by approximately 75 percent. Periodic maintenance dredging of the
IHC/GCR would reduce future sediment loading to the lake. An additional sediment
trap at "the forks", the triple junction of the east and west branches of the GCR
and the IHC, is also currently under study and will be included in future National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation.
An additional issue requiring further study is the potential change in the hydraulic
divide of the West Branch of the GCR. At this area, the flow reverses from an
eastward Lake Michigan drainage to a westward Des Plaines River/Illinois River
64

-------
drainage. This divide fluctuates depending on a number of factors including the
amount of water flowing from the east branch of the GCR, the stage of Lake
Michigan, the wind direction and speed, and the amount of discharge from the
local sewage treatment plants (IDEM, 1991). At times there is no divide and all
flow is westward towards the Illinois River. Should both USACE and USEPA-
required dredging occur in the IHC/GCR, a significant quantity of sediments would
be removed potentially altering the flow regime of this area. The hydraulics of the
system are currently under study and will be addressed in subsequent NEPA
documentation.
Dredging may also impact the hydrologic regime of nearby Roxana Marsh.
Additionally, the degree of contamination of Roxana Marsh is under study. If the
marsh is found to be contaminated, disturbance of the marsh or other wetlands
bordering the IHC to remediate toxic contamination would qualify under a
Nationwide General Permit. Nationwide General Permit #38 authorizes "specific
activities required to effect the containment, stabilization or removal of hazardous
or toxic waste materials that are performed, ordered, or sponsored by a
government agency with established legal or regulatory authority" (33 CFR 330
Appendix A(B)(38)). The affected wetlands would be delineated in accordance
with the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987). Prior to
any wetland disturbance, the Detroit District of the USACE would be notified in
writing following the procedures outlined in 33 CFR 330, Appendix A(C)(13). All
other conditions for Nationwide Permits outlined in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A(C)
would be observed. Any mitigation measures specified by the Detroit District of
the USACE would be followed.
The combination of both USACE dredging and USEPA-required dredging would
further decrease any potential for future exposure of aquatic biota in the IHC/GCR
to contaminants accumulated in existing sediments. Small amounts of sediment
65

-------
missed by the dredging could still serve as reservoirs of contamination, but these
amounts should be insignificant.
The existing benthic community, dominated by pollution tolerant organisms, would
be disrupted by the dredging operations, but a new benthic community would re-
colonize following completion of the dredging. Because of the nearly complete
elimination of the sediment-borne reservoir of contamination, the new benthic
community could become more diverse with time. Some fish could be attracted to
the area of dredging and be physically injured or destroyed. Additionally, some
dredging could take place in shallow waters that presently support emergent
vegetation, thereby destroying it. Dredging could deepen some such waters to the
point that emergent vegetation would not re-establish. As with the other dredging
alternatives, physical disruption of the sediment load by dredging operations would
result in the temporary exposure of aquatic biota to localized increases in
contaminants resulting from resuspended sediments.
The biological assessment prepared by USACE in 1989 did not address dredging in
waters outside the Federal navigation channel (USACE, 1990). The USFWS would
be consulted to determine whether an expanded and updated biological
assessment would be necessary to determine whether this alternative could result
in significant impacts to Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or
critical habitat.
4.2 Impacts of Sediment Management Technology Alternatives
4.2.1	Impacts of Dredging Alternatives
Dredging the IHC navigation channel and areas outside the navigation channel
would have long-term beneficial impacts and short-term detrimental impacts on
sediment quality. Dredging of these areas would remove in-place contaminated
66

-------
sediments from the aquatic ecosystem, eliminating the potential for contaminants
to be resuspended and transported into Lake Michigan. During dredging operations
however, sediment resuspension would cause some contaminant movement
downstream. Most of the resuspended sediments would be deposited in other
areas of the IHC where they would be removed by future dredging operations. A
small percentage of resuspended sediments would be transported to Lake
Michigan. Sediment resuspension can be minimized by using specific dredging
techniques previously discussed (USACE, 1990).
Mechanical dredging would tend to cause more sediment resuspension and
turbidity than hydraulic dredging. Use of a closed bucket clamshell dredge would
reduce sediment resuspension by 30 to 70 percent over other means of mechanical
dredging. Hydraulic dredging has several advantages over mechanical dredging.
When properly selected and operated, hydraulic dredging can maximize the removal
of silt, leave virtually no silt behind, effectively control turbidity, and pump the
maximum concentration of silt in the slurry in a cost effective manner. Further
advantages include relatively small disturbances to the aquatic ecosystem and no
disturbance of the surrounding shoreline, including dock areas, by heavy equipment
(WODCOIM XII, 1989). Hydraulic dredging is especially advantageous in the
removal of contaminated sediments, as resuspension of dredged materials is kept
at a minimum.
Hydraulic dredging would result in less exposure of aquatic biota to contamination
during and immediately following dredging operations. Hydraulic dredging, relative
to mechanical dredging, also minimizes physical disturbance of fish . However,
because the sediments are generally fine-grained (USACE, 1990) and dredging has
not occurred since 1972, mechanical dredging could be more effective than
hydraulic dredging in consolidated sediment removal, thereby resulting in greater
long-term benefits to aquatic biota.
67

-------
4.2.2	Impacts of Treatment Alternatives
All treatment technologies would require the use of a CDF in some capacity
(USACE, 1990). No specific impacts to sediment quality and biotic resources from
the application of a treatment alternative are expected. Therefore, impacts to
these discipline areas from any treatment alternative would be as described for the
specific CDF constructed and operated. These impacts are discussed in Section
4.2.3, Disposal Alternatives.
The CDF treatment operations will affect the quality and quantity of discharge
water (USACE, 1990). With incineration and wet air oxidation, the de-watered
sediments would be processed over a considerable period of time. Capping of the
CDF site would be delayed until the solid residue was returned to the CDF,
including possible post-treatment by solidification. Extending the treatment period
could increase the total quantity of water collected by the underdrain system.
4.2.3	Impacts of Disposal Alternatives
The rehandling and disposal of dredged materials to any of the CDF sites, with the
exception of the Inland Steel Site, may result in some release of sediments back
into the canal. Rehandling operations would use splash aprons or other devices to
minimize spillage to the canal or adjacent lands. Any released sediments would be
removed by further dredging operations. No significant impacts to sediment
quality are expected for any of the disposal alternatives (USACE, 1990).
The Inland Steel Site would be constructed inside the Inland breakwater, so that
any release resulting from rehandling and disposal of sediments would be into the
area confined by the breakwater. The disposal operations would use splash aprons
or other devices to minimize spillage into the breakwater. Any spilled materials
68

-------
would be isolated from the open waters of Lake Michigan by the existing Inland
Steel breakwater (USACE, 1990).
Dredged materials disposed to the CDF at each of the alternative CDF sites, with
the exception of the Inland Steel Site, would be evaporated or drawn into an
underdrainage system. Water pumped from the underdrain would be pre-treated
using sand filtration and carbon sorption and then discharged to the Hammond,
Gary, or East Chicago sanitary sewer systems. This water would receive further
treatment from those system's wastewater treatment plants and ultimately be
discharged to the GCR (USACE, 1990).
The pumping of water from the CDF would occur mainly during disposal
operations, with intermittent pumping at other times. Pumping to the respective
treatment plant would be managed so as not to impact National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance or the quality of effluent from
the treatment facility. As a result, the CDF operations at each alternative site with
the exception of the Inland Steel Site would have no significant effects on water
quality (USACE, 1990).
The quantity and quality of water discharged from the CDF at the Inland Steel Site
would be different from that at any of the upland CDF sites. The primary reason
for this is the presence of a permanent pond. The water within the area enclosed
by the CDF dikes would gradually be displaced by dredged materials. This entire
volume of water, along with some of the water associated with the dredge spoils,
would eventually be discharged (USACE, 1990).
The water pumped out of the Inland Steel CDF would be treated by sand filtration
and carbon sorption (when needed) and discharged into the ponded area of the
Inland Steel fill which would act as a mixing zone. From there, the water would
enter Lake Michigan. The initial CDF effluent would exceed state water quality

-------
standards for total dissolved solids, ammonia nitrogen, and PCBs. However, the
mixing of the effluent with water in the Inland Steel area would reduce these levels
such that ammonia nitrogen would meet state standards and PCBs would approach
background concentrations prior to ultimate discharge to the lake. As a result, the
operation of a CDF at the Inland Steel Site would have no significant impacts on
Lake Michigan water quality (USACE, 1990).
The USACE DEIS for the IHC concluded that construction of a CDF on any of the
four alternative sites would not result in significant losses of terrestrial or aquatic
habitats or wetlands (USACE, 1990). Use of either the 141st Street Site, J-Pit
Site, or Inland Steel Site would result in insignificant losses of aquatic habitat due
to the filling of shallow waters.
Use of the 141st Street Site or J-Pit Site could result in the filling of areas
qualifying as wetlands according to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual (USACE, 1987). Regardless of which site is selected, the USACE and the
USEPA would delineate any wetlands that would be potentially filled by
construction of the CDF and have the delineation verified by USACE. If USACE
directs that mitigation is required to offset the wetland fill, USEPA would perform
this mitigation off-site.
A biological assessment prepared by USACE in 1989 concluded that construction
of a CDF on any of the four alternative sites would not result in significant impacts
to Federally-listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat (USACE,
1990). The USFWS would be consulted to determine whether an updated
biological assessment would be necessary.
70

-------
4.2.4 Impacts of Sediment Isolation Alternatives
Sediment capping, when properly applied, would isolate the contaminants in the
sediment, and provide a clean substrate for aquatic biota. There is no dredging
involved in sediment isolation alternatives, so resuspension of sediments would not
occur (WODCON XII, 1989). However, because sediment isolation does not
involve dredging, the Federal navigation channel would not be excavated to
authorized depths, and navigation would be negatively impacted with subsequent
socioeconomic impacts to industries in the area. Because the cap must be of
adequate thickness, the navigation channel would become even more shallow than
it would be under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, sediment capping is not a
viable alternative for the Federal navigation channel, and would only be used in
conjunction with another sediment management alternative. Impacts of sediment
isolation alternatives would therefore be similar to the impacts of the sediment
management alternative that is used concurrently.
An effective sediment cap would provide similar long-term benefits to aquatic biota
as would the dredging of contaminated sediments. However, sediment capping
allows the contaminated sediments to remain in-place thereby increasing exposure,
health and ecological risks in the future. Long-term contaminant release through
the sediment cap is another possible risk. Also from a negative perspective, the
sediment cap would reduce channel depth, converting certain open shallow waters
to vegetated wetlands or to dry uplands. As with dredging, installation of the
sediment cap would destroy any existing benthic biota or emergent vegetation.
4.3 Cumulative Impacts of Sediment Management Alternatives
There would be significant beneficial cumulative environmental impacts from the
implementation of a sediment management strategy for the IHC and GCR. As
discussed previously, remediation of the contaminated sediments in the IHC/GCR
71

-------
would have long term positive effects on sediment and water quality in the river
and harbor system and in southern Lake Michigan. Short term negative effects
caused by the disruption of the in-place sediments would rapidly diminish.
Dredging of the IHC/GCR would also allow for significant trapping of sediments in
the river and canal and decrease the potential for contaminated sediment transport
to Lake Michigan. Dredging the IHC or GCR alone would reduce sediment load to
Lake Michigan by approximately 50 percent. However, the combined USACE and
USEPA-required dredging of the IHC/GCR would reduce sediment transport to Lake
Michigan by approximately 75 percent. Future maintenance dredging of the water
system would ensure the sediment trapping capacity of the IHC/GCR.
Decreasing contamination in the IHC/GCR would have wide ranging effects,
including increases in sediment and water quality which would benefit aquatic and
terrestrial biota. An increase in biodiversity would be expected. Increases in
sediment and water quality in the IHC/GCR would allow recolonization by species
which are less pollution tolerant, and more economically and aesthetically
beneficial. Transportation of water- and sediment-borne contaminants from the
IHC/GCR to Lake Michigan would decrease from current elevated levels, allowing
for continued high quality aquatic habitat uses like water supply and commercial
and recreational fishing and boating.
Benefits of sediment remediation in the IHC/GCR would be enhanced by the
numerous USEPA initiatives currently planned and in progress for northwest
Indiana. These activities have been planned and, to varying degrees, implemented
to increase the quality of the environment in the area (Table 4.1). In fact,
sediment remediation without continued implementation of these initiatives would
potentially serve as only a temporary solution as contamination would again
degrade the remediated areas with time. Active environmental management,
including pollution prevention programs, source reduction, enforcement of
72

-------
Table 4.1 Impacts of USEPA Initiatives for the Northwest Indiana Region
Effects of
Initiatives
USEPA IN*]
NATIVES
33/50
Initiative
Lake Michigan
LaMP
RAP for IHC,
GCR, and
nearshore Lake
Michigan
Public and
Private
Partnerships
Pollution
Prevention
Initiative
Geographic
Enforcement
Initiative
Assessment
and
Remediation of
Contaminated
Sediments
Air Program
Initiative
Source reduction
yes
yes
—

yes
yes
—
data not
available
Remediation
-
—
yes

—
yes
—
data not
available
Public outreach
—
—
yes
yes
yes
—
yes
data not
available
Sediment quality
potential
increase
—
potential
increase
—
potential
increase
potential
increase
potential
increase
data not
available
Water quality
potential
increase
potential
increase
potential
increase '
—
potential
increase
potential
increase
potential
increase
data not
available
Habitat quality
and quantity
potential
increase
potential
increase
potential
increase
--
potential
increase
potential
increase
potential
increase
data not
available
Groundwater
quality
potential
increase
—
potential
increase
—
potential
increase
potential
increase
—
data not
available
Air quality
potential
increase
...
potential
increase
-
potential
increase
potential
increase
—
data not
available
Socio
-economics
unknown
unknown
unknown
...
unknown
unknown
unknown
data not
available

-------
environmental statutes, and public outreach and information programs, together
with the remediation of existing contamination will increase the probability for
environmental enhancement of the northwest Indiana area, including southern Lake
Michigan. Therefore, a concerted effort, employing multi-agency and
multi-disciplinary approaches, would have a much better chance of success.
74

-------
5. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Mitigation measures for the proposed activities which could potentially minimize
adverse environmental impacts are listed in Table 5.1. The environmentally
adverse impacts of the project are mainly short-term in nature and are countered
by the beneficial long-term impacts of removing contaminant sources from the
water system. A number of adverse environmental impacts are mitigated by the
design and engineering of a specific dredging, treatment, or disposal alternative.
See Section 2, Discussion of Alternatives, for more detailed discussions of
mitigating design features.
75

-------
Table 5.1 Potential Mitigation Measures for Groundwater, Sediment, and Water Quality, and Biological
Resources
Resource
Measure
Effect
Sediment Quality
Extensively survey the subsurface
sediments to determine the exact
location and degree of contamination
Allows segregation of sediments into 1)
reusable; 2) contaminated but not toxic;
and 3) TSCA regulated, thereby
extending the life of the CDF and
reducing disposal costs
Sediment Quality
Good control of the dredge head is
required
Control of dredge head, horizontally and
vertically, allows for precise removal of
specific sediment areas
Sediment Quality,
Water Quality
Install CDF Splash Apron
Decreases release of dredged materials to
water outside of CDF
Sediment Quality,
Water Quality
Dredge using closed-bucket clamshell
(mechanical) or dustpan (hydraulic)
dredge head
Minimizes sediment resuspension
Sediment Quality,
Water Quality
Limit dredging to slack tidal currents
Reduces distance suspended sediments
would be transported
Water Quality
Use oil boom and absorbants for
grease and oil in dredging process
Minimizes potential for oil and grease
containing dissolved PAHs and PCBs to
be re-released into dredged areas
Water Quality
Use of best management practices for
CDF maintenance: 1) add flocculants
to precipitate out contaminants in the
CDF; 2) pretreat water released from
CDF with sand filtration and carbon
sorption; 3) deliver CDF discharge
water to treatment plant prior to
release; and 4) control of wind-borne,
desiccated soils within the CDF
Releases treated water back into
environment (1-3) and prevents
contaminated soils release from the CDF
(4)
Groundwater Quality
Line CDF with = 3 ft. clay liner,
install underdrainage system, install a
graded clay cap
Prevents leaching from CDF to
groundwater
Biological Resources
Dredge during periods of low
biological activity
Minimizes biological impacts of turbidity
and contaminants
Biological Resources
Delineate wetlands that would
potentially be filled by CDF
construction, and if necessary,
perform mandatory wetland
mitigations
Minimizes loss of wetlands
Biological Resources
Determine whether a biological
assessment is necessary, and if
necessary, prepare a biological
assessment
Prevents destruction of Federally listed,
endangered, or candidate species, and of
critical habitats
All resources
Enact more stringent legislation
controlling source releases
Prevents further pollution from
contaminating the area

-------
REFERENCES
FICWD (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation), 1989. Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. US Army
Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish and
Wildlife Service, and USDA Soil Conservation Service. Cooperative technical
publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.
Floyd Browne Associates, Inc., 1991. Sediment Characterization Study. Grand
Calumet River. Gary. Hammond and East Chicago. Indiana. Prepared for US
Steel, Gary, Indiana, December.
IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management), 1991. The Remedial
Action Plan for the Indiana Harbor Canal, the Grand Calumet River and the
Nearshore Lake Michigan. Stage One. January.
Polls, I., 1988. Sediment Survey of the Indiana Harbor Canal. Indiana Harbor, and
Adjacent Lake Michigan for the Chicago District. US Armv Corps of
Engineers. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Research and
Development Department, July.
Polls, I. and S. Dennison, 1984. Biological and Chemical Water Quality Survey in
Indiana Harbor, the Indiana Harbor Canal, and Southwestern Lake Michigan
for the US Armv Corps of Engineers. Chicago District. Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago. Chicago, Illinois. 88 pp.
Risatti, J.B., and P. Ross, 1989. Chemical. Biological and Toxicolooical Study of
Sediments from Indiana Harbor. Canal and Adjacent Lake Michigan. Final
Report to Chicago District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Illinois State
Geological Survey and Illinois Natural History Survey, November.
77

-------
State of Indiana, 1990. Indiana Water Quality Standards, Indiana Administrative
Code, Title 327, Water Pollution Control Board, Articles 1 and 2, Water
Quality Standards. Amended March 3.
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers), 1986. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Indiana Harbor Confined Disposal Facility and Maintenance
Dredging. Lake County. Indiana. US Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago
District. February.
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers), 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers), 1988. Draft Plan of Study. Indiana Harbor
Navigation Maintenance. US Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District.
October.
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers), 1990. Preliminary Letter Report and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Indiana Harbor and Canal Lake County.
Indiana Maintenance Dredging and Disposal Activities. Department of the
Army, Chicago District Corps of Engineers. November.
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 1992. Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) 1992 Work Plan. USEPA
Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, Illinois.
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) and IDEM (Indiana Department of
Environmental Management), 1992. Northwest Indiana Action Plan. USEPA
Region V, Chicago, Illinois. March.
78

-------
WODCON XII, 1989. Dredaina: Technology. Environmental. Mining. Proceedings
of the Xllth World Dredging Congress (WODCON), Orlando, Florida, May 2-
5.
79

-------
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
80

-------
LIST OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
««»««T0 be SUpp|je(| upon receipt from USEPA
81

-------
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
82

-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
J. Peyton Doub, Biotic Resources, Halliburton NUS Corporation
M.S., Botany, 1984> University of California at Davis
B.S., Plant Sciences, 1982, Cornell University
Years of Experience: 10
Kevin T. Folk, Physical Sciences, Halliburton NUS Corporation
B.A., Geoenvironmental Studies, 1989, Shippensburg University of
Pennsylvania
A.A.,	Biological Sciences Concentration, 1987, Frederick Community College
Years of Experience: 4
Stephen P. Giannino, Project Engineer, Halliburton NUS Corporation
M.C.E., Coastal & Ocean Engineering, 1974, University of Delaware
B.E.,	Civil Engineering, 1972, The Cooper Union
Years of Experience: 19
Michel R. Griben, Project Administrator, Halliburton NUS Corporation
M.S., Fisheries, 1979, University of Washington
B.S., Marine Sciences/Biology, 1976, Long Island University
Years of Experience: 19
Kerry P. Humphrey, Project Manager, Halliburton NUS Corporation
M.S., Biology, 1990, University of Louisville
B.S., Biology, 1984, Indiana University
Years of Experience: 9
Todd C. Miller, Engineer, Halliburton NUS Corporation
B.S., Civil Engineering, 1990, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Years of Experience: 2
83

-------